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=561470 --- Comment #11 from Petr Muller <pmuller@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-12 11:27:03 EST --- (In reply to comment #4) > Can the .spec summary be made more specific? Presently, it says "An operating > system integration testing harness". Is that the correct summary for > beakerlib? I've put there what Petr Splichal proposed in comment 5 > * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in > the review. > > FAIL - I've attached a small spec patch to address several issues, but you will > need to adjust further to address the issues identified below. rpmlint is now silent on the package > FAIL - > * I can't tell by looking at the code what the license is. You may wish to > include a LICENSE file. > * The Makefile lists '# License: GPL v2 or later', but the package is listed > as GPLv2. if this is the case, you may wish to change the .spec file License: > GPLv2+ > * src/staf-rhts/BEAKERLIB.pm shows "Eclipse Public License (EPL) V1.0" which > is not compatible with the GPLv2 (see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses). staf-rhts was removed. The correct license is GPLv2 only and all files should have standardized license infirmation. > * MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package must be included in <code>%doc</code>. > > No LICENSE file included, so not an issue. LICENSE now included and tagged by %doc > FAIL - Please correct according to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Fixed, see previous comments > * MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > > WARN - while the package builds successfully, it won't build properly once the > %files are adjusted to suitable system-wide locations. The build process will > need to be adjusted. Paths were fixed, see previous comments. > * MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. > > FAIL - please see attached patch Fixed, see previous comment > * MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's > %files listings. > > FAIL - please see attached patch Fixed > * MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. Every <code>%files</code> section > must include a <code>%defattr(...)</code> line. > > FAIL - please see attached patch I believe all files have right permissions. > * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains <code>rm -rf > %{buildroot}</code> ([[Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags|or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT]]). > > WARN - noted earlier in rpmlint output Fixed. > * MUST: At the beginning of <code>%install</code>, each package MUST run > <code>rm -rf %{buildroot}</code> > ([[Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags|or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT]]). > > FAIL - please see attached patch Fixed. > * 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. > > Pmuller is upstream in this case, I've recommended including a LICENSE file Included. -- 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