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=570424 --- Comment #3 from Dominic Hopf <dmaphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-07 18:00:31 EST --- $ rpmlint transmission-remote-cli.spec transmission-remote-cli.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The no-buildroot-tag warning can be ignored since you actually use it to install the files. $ rpmlint transmission-remote-cli.spec transmission-remote-cli.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install transmission-remote-cli.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag The first warning can and should be solved by adding 'rm -rf %{buildroot}' at the beginning of the %install section. For second warning, see above. $ rpmlint transmission-remote-cli-0.5.5-2.20100303git.fc12.noarch.rpm transmission-remote-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Guess ncurses actually is spelled correctly. ;) Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec [x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: see above binary RPM: see above [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines License: GPLv3+ [-] License file is included in %doc. [x] Specfile is legible and written in AE [x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source SHA1SUM of Source: 52873f09c773101e3ef982d5406205ae878b3c33 [x] Package compiles successfully [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires [-] Specfile handles locales properly [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [-] Package owns directorys it creates [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing [x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly [x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} [x] Macros are consistently used [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage [x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc [-] Header files are in a -devel package [-] Static libraries are in a -static package [-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present [-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage [-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package [-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed [-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!] %{buildroot} is removed at beginning of %install [-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8 === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [!] Package contains latest upstream version [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] non-English translations for description and summary [!] Package builds in mock Tested on: F12/x86_64; see my note concerning README.md below [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. tested build with koji [x] Program runs [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package [-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required Issues to point out: * You should write down in your ChangeLog what you actually changed in the package or rather in the specfile * The installation of the README.md is not okay yet. The file actually would get installed in /, which obviuously is not the right place for documentation files. Seems I forgot the important thing in my suggestion before, sorry for that. (It really was a 'quick note' it seems). This one will be even better: install -Dpm 644 %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.md Note you will also have to change the line in %files section accordingly: %doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/README.md * While checking the sha1sum I noted there were some changes on the code just today, maybe you want to update the file and the release tag accordingly then? * The release number should always begin with 0. For example a full version string should be something like 0.5.5-0.20100303git. See [1] for the guidelines about that. The principle you are following at preset is the one for post-releases, but there weren't any releases before. Basically, the guideline which concerns to pre-release packages should be applied here. But, I guess there never will be a release after this "pre-release", since the sources just can be obtained from the git repository. I won't be that strict and would approve your package also when you're staying at increasing the release number. Please fix at least the first two issues and I will approve your package then. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages -- 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