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=566962 --- Comment #3 from Chen Lei <supercyper@xxxxxxx> 2010-02-20 23:02:54 EST --- > Since I'm not approved, I'm able to give you an unofficial review > > rpmlint polipo-1.0.4.1-1.fc12.src.rpm polipo.spec > polipo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pipelining -> pipe lining, > pipe-lining, pipeline Not spelling error indeed,See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_pipelining > polipo.src: W: invalid-url URL www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/polipo/ Fixed > polipo.src: W: strange-permission polipo.init 0755 most files in the /etc/rc.d/init.d should be 0755. > polipo.src:65: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 65, tab: line 1) Fixed > polipo.spec:65: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 65, tab: line 1) > 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. > Fixed > Looking deeper to the spec-file: > > - URL-Entry should start with http:// Fixed > - yum provides /sbin/install-info lists info as package providing > /sbin/install-info. If you definitely need it for pre and post-section, take > info. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires Lists > info as package, that doesn't need to be included. Modified based on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo > - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}-Macros should not be mixed. > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS) Fixed > > Mock builds fine. > Ok, looking deeper: > +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing > > [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. > (see above) > [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} > [=] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this > list and more] > [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines. > [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > [+] 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 %doc. > [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. > [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. > <<md5sum checksum>> > [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on > at least one supported architecture. > [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an > architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. > [-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires Which dependencies are missing in BuildRequires? > [=] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. > [*] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just > symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in > %post and %postun. > [*] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state > this fact in the request for review > [-] 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. How to fix it? I think I already own all directories. > [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. > [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > [-] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros Fixed > section of Packaging Guidelines. > [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is > described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. > [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. > [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the > runtime of the application. > [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > [+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' > (for directory ownership and usability). > [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. > libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in > a -devel package. > [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = > %{version}-%{release} > [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be > removed in the spec. > [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop > file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section. > [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. -- 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