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=545039 --- Comment #8 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-12 17:33:05 EST --- A few minor things that need to be addressed + rpmlint output rpmlint xulrunner-python-* xulrunner-python.src: E: percent-in-dependency nspr-devel >= %{nspr_version} xulrunner-python.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python interface for mozilla XPCOM library. xulrunner-python.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 1) xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Python interface for mozilla XPCOM library. xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.9.2-1.20091125hg ['1.9.2-1.20100111hg.fc13', '1.9.2-1.20100111hg'] xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%post /sbin/ldconfig xulrunner-python.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig xulrunner-python-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources xulrunner-python-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Development files for python XPCOM interface. xulrunner-python-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib xulrunner-python-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + latest version packaged - %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 67eeb7bd7bc519a8adadc976e660791c virt-mem-0.2.9.tar.gz + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build - BuildRequires list all build dependencies issues with undefined %{nspr_version} n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package + header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel + devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: - if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review