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=553717 --- Comment #26 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-07 07:29:30 EST --- Sorry for the delay. There's a few minor bits that need to be addressed. The only thing that looks like a major issue on the rpmlint output is the no-buildroot-tag. - rpmlint output $ rpmlint libcrystalhd.spec ../SRPMS/libcrystalhd-0.9.25-1.fc12.src.rpm ../RPMS/x86_64/libcrystalhd-* libcrystalhd.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag libcrystalhd.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: libcrystalhd-0.9.25.tar.bz2 libcrystalhd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Broadcom -> Broad com, Broad-com, Broadcloth libcrystalhd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace libcrystalhd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Broadcom -> Broad com, Broad-com, Broadcloth libcrystalhd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes, coders, code's libcrystalhd.src: W: no-buildroot-tag libcrystalhd.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libcrystalhd-0.9.25.tar.bz2 libcrystalhd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Broadcom -> Broad com, Broad-com, Broadcloth libcrystalhd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userspace -> user space, user-space, users pace libcrystalhd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Broadcom -> Broad com, Broad-com, Broadcloth libcrystalhd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes, coders, code's libcrystalhd.x86_64: W: no-documentation libcrystalhd-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libs -> lobs, lib, lbs libcrystalhd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + latest version packaged - %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm fe11b1960f3ceda55ca6c2dd2d61ccff crystalhd_linux_20091229.zip + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2036589 + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage n/a files marked %doc should not affect package + header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' + libfoo.so must go in -devel + devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: - if there is no license file, packager should query upstream No license file but source files contain headers n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin -- 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