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=554647 Eric Smith <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Eric Smith <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-27 20:17:50 EST --- I've just been through learning where to put icons for one of my own packages. Apparently the preferred location is /usr/share/pixmaps. I can only offer an informal review, someone else will have to do an official one. I'm not sure whether removing the "linux-" prefix from the upstream naming is a good idea. I can see why it would be desirable, and I'd personally prefer it, but I can't find anything in the Fedora naming guidelines to support it: "When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project name from which this software came." http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming Becuase of this, the Source0 tag and setup macro aren't working as written. The Source0 tag should apparently use "linux-%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz", and the corresponding setup macro should be "%setup -q -n linux-%{name}" (no -%{version} because the tarball doesn't use that in the path). rpmlint reports: rpmlint wbfs-manager.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/wbfs-manager-* wbfs-manager.spec:65: W: macro-in-%changelog %pre wbfs-manager.x86_64: W: no-documentation wbfs-manager.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/applications/wbfsmanager.desktop wbfs-manager-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package defattr should be "%defattr(-,root,root,-)"; if you need 0755 permissions on some files, you should arrange for that in the build or install sections. That should fix the "script-without-shebang" error. Should probably use install rather than cp to install the executable, e.g. install -D -p -m 755 lmdemo %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/lmdemo The make invocation should include CFLAGS="%{optflags}". I'd thought that might fix the empty-debuginfo-package warning, but it doesn't, possibly because the Makefile isn't using CFLAGS for the link. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK -- spec uses both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. probably OK? see what an experienced reviewer says MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK - just fix the Source0 tag as described above MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. NEEDSWORK - just fix the setup macro as described above MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. NEEDSWORK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. NEEDSWORK add icon as described above, and need to run desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. NEEDSWORK - if the Source0 tag and setup macro are fixes as described above, that will probably take care of mock. -- 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