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=554711 Vitezslav Crhonek <vcrhonek@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(rrakus@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #2 from Vitezslav Crhonek <vcrhonek@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-18 08:46:36 EST --- OK source files match upstream: 2ad1622b672ccf53a3444a0c55724d38 libcdio-0.81.tar.gz OK source contains full URL OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. BAD specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. rpmlint warns: libcdio.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 28, tab: line 47) (minor issue, can be easily fixed) OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. OK license field matches the actual license (GPLv3+). OK license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. BAD latest version is being packaged. Latest version is libcdio-0.82, why it's not packed? OK BuildRequires are proper. (It will build with just doxygen in BuildRequires, but other BuildRequires are not in Exceptions list, so it's probably fine to have them in the spec file.) OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock. OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. libcdio.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 28, tab: line 47) - can be easily fixed libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cd-info ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cdda-player ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libudf.so.0.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libcdio_paranoia.so.0.0.3 ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/iso-info ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libcdio_cdda.so.0.0.5 ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/libiso9660.so.7.0.0 ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/iso-read ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cd-paranoia ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cd-read ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cd-drive ['/usr/lib64'] libcdio.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/mmc-tool ['/usr/lib64'] - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath, this will help you remove rpath libcdio.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/libcdio-0.81/THANKS - please convert it to the utf8 OK final provides and requires look sane. OK %check is present and all tests pass. OK every binary RPM package which contains shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK no scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in -devel. OK packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. Summary: pack latest upstream version, remove rpath, don't mix tabs and spaces in the spec file, convert THANKS file to the utf8 encoding -- 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