Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226431 --- Comment #4 from Adam Tkac <atkac@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-15 10:40:59 EDT --- Formal review of squid-3.1.0.15-2.fc13: "+" means OK, "-" means not OK + MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec - MUST(1): The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines + MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - MUST(2): The License field in spec match the actual license - MUST(3): If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file must be included in %doc + MUST: The spec file written in American English + MUST: The spec file for the package is legible + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL + MUST: The package successfully compile + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - MUST(4): The spec file handle locales properly + MUST: Every package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + MUST: Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries + MUST: Package own all directories that it creates + MUST: Package does not list a file more than once in the spec file + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line + MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) - MUST(5): Package use macros consistently + MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content + MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application + MUST: Header files in a -devel package + MUST: Static libraries in a -static package + MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' + MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package + MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built + MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 1: Use versioned Sources, please (s/Source/Source0/) 2: It seems package is distributed under GPLv2 only, not GPLv2+ 3: Include COPYING and COPYRIGHT files in %doc, please 4: use %find_lang macro, please. Check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files for more information 5: Use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS macro instead of %{optflags} Other: - please remove Source1 (the .asc signature). I don't see any reason to include it in the package - don't use -fPIE flag on architectures where -fpie is sufficient because -fpie generates faster code. I suggest to use this in the specfile: %ifarch sparcv9 sparc64 s390 s390x export CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fPIE" export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fPIE" %else export CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fpie" export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS -fpie" %endif export LDFLAGS="-pie" - I recommend to drop -Os, -g, -pipe and -fsigned-char parameters - don't export CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS twice, the first export is sufficient - please use macros instead of hardcoded paths: - use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc - use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share - fix (or explain) all rpmlint warnings - consider to add LSB header to initscript (not required, check https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript#LSB_Header) - remove the %triggerin as written in comments #1, #2 and #3 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review