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=548092 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-18 04:59:44 EDT --- REVIEW: + rpmlint is silent [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/shared-color-targets-0.0.1-0.6.20091216git.fc12.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - I've got few complaints about file contents directory layout. -- First, nobody owns dir %{_datadir}/color/targets. This issue must be fixed. -- Second, I don't see necessity of creating {_datadir}/shared-color-targets/wolf_faust just for storing LICENSE and README. Just mark them as %doc. If you wish to reflect the fact, that these two files are relevant to wolf_faust, then just rename them into something like README.wolf_faust and LICENSE.wolf_faust (and, after that, just mark them as %doc). Also it resolves the issue with inclusion of files with licensing info (see note below) -- I'm not sure, that we need to package ChangeLog at all - it contains only technical data, regarding repository changes. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file contains wrong data. You forgot to add CC-BY-SA (see LICENSE file in {_datadir}/shared-color-targets/wolf_faust directory). Also I don't find any traces of "Public Domain" content. Perhaps, test.it8 is licensed under this license? - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be included in %doc. See note above - you must mark LICENSE file for Wolf Faust's work as %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. - The sources used to build the package, MUST match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. I've got 404 while trying to D/L Source0. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. See message above. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, here is a TODO list: * Provide downloadable Source0 * Fix License field in spec-file * Package must own %{_datadir}/color/targets dir * Relocate docs related to Wolf Faust's work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review