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=549809 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-22 13:36:55 EDT --- REVIEW: + rpmlint is silent [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ~/Desktop/mingw32-libzip-0.9-1.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. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. 0 Upstream doesn't provide the file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum libzip-0.9.tar.gz* b0d0a768f9ef8fef14683adade0b819549dd3e61b9a5bf8ab8a92e378d87a05f libzip-0.9.tar.gz b0d0a768f9ef8fef14683adade0b819549dd3e61b9a5bf8ab8a92e378d87a05f libzip-0.9.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886694 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No need to run ldconfig for mingw32 libraries. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + 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 need to separate header files from main package for mingw32-related package. 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 for mingw32 packages, since they are intended for devel entirely. 0 The mingw32 package may contain necessary .la libtool archives. This is not a blocker. 0 Not a GUI application. - The package DOES own files or directories already owned by other packages. Please, instead of adding whole %{_mingw32_libdir}/ add only %{_mingw32_libdir}/libzip.dll.a %{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig/libzip.pc + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So, please, fix the only issue with alread owned directories and I'll continue. -- 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