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=551857 Colin Coe <colin.coe@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |colin.coe@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Colin Coe <colin.coe@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-01 21:45:35 EST --- MUST ---- rpmlint output - MISSING Package name - OKAY Spec file matches base package - OKAY # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . License must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines - OK License in spec must match actual license - BAD Spec file states license is GPLv2 but fwsnort.8 states GPL (no version) License file include in %doc - BAD License file not included in RPM Spec file written in American English - OK Spec file legible - OK Tar ball matches upstream - OK Package successfully builds binary RPMs - OK (tested on RHEL5) All build dependencies listed in BuildRequires - N/A Spec file MUST handle locales properly - N/A Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun - N/A Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries - N/A Pakcage relocatable - N/A Package must own all directories that it creates - OK No duplicate files - OK Permissions on files must be set correctly - OK Each package must have %clean which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} - OK Macro use must be consistant - OK Package must contain code or permissable content - OK Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage - OK Doc files must not affect runtime - N/A Header files must be in devel package - N/A Static Libaries must be in statioc package Packahes containing pkgconfig files must 'Requirs: pkgconfig' - N/A If package contains library files with a suffix then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package - N/A Devel package to be versioned against base - N/A Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives - N/A Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file - N/A Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages - OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} - OK All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 - OK SHOULD ------ If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it - N/A The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available - N/A The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock - OK (tested against RHEL5) The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures - OK The reviewer should test that the package functions as described - not running snort: not done. If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane - N/A Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency - N/A The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg - N/A If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself - N/A Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense - OK RESULTS ------- Please provide rpmlint output Please review the license Please include LICENSE in the %doc section. Please also consider moving /etc/fwsnort/snort_rules/VERSION to %doc section Please consider including the following files in the %doc section: VERSION README CREDITS TODO -- 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