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=226484 Ondrej Vasik <ovasik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ondrej Vasik <ovasik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-09 08:15:48 EST --- Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review [Reset@localhost devel]$ rpmlint telnet.spec telnet*.rpm i386/*.rpm telnet.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: telnet-client.tar.gz telnet.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) login -> loin, logic, lo gin telnet.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Telnet telnet.src: W: no-url-tag telnet.src: W: invalid-url Source2: telnet-client.tar.gz telnet-debuginfo.i386: W: no-url-tag telnet-server.i386: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) login -> loin, logic, lo gin telnet-server.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US logins -> losing, loins, lo gins telnet-server.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xinetd -> dinette, ninety, kinetic telnet-server.i386: W: no-url-tag telnet.i386: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) login -> loin, logic, lo gin telnet.i386: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Telnet telnet.i386: W: no-url-tag 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings. [Reset@localhost devel]$ rpmlint --version rpmlint version 0.94 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva All W/E discussed previously, I'm ok with them. Confirmed that URL is no longer available, could be probably http://web.archive.org/web/20070819111735/www.hcs.harvard.edu/~dholland/computers/old-netkit.html + MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines Name doesn't match upstream tarball(netkit-telnet), but it's done this way for a long time and for consistency I would say it is better to keep it as it is. Same is done in other distros as well. + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . + MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines + MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license 0 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. No such file in package. + 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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task >From sources: $ md5sum netkit-telnet-0.17.tar.gz d6beabaaf53fe6e382c42ce3faa05a36 netkit-telnet-0.17.tar.gz >From upstream ftp: $ md5sum netkit-telnet-0.17.tar.gz d6beabaaf53fe6e382c42ce3faa05a36 netkit-telnet-0.17.tar.gz = MATCHES + MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture - tested on i686, no problems 0 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, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines 0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro 0 MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. 0 MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries 0 MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker + MUST: 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 + MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 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 + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content 0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application 0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package 0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package 0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' 0 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 0 MUST: 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 must be removed in the spec if they are built 0 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 The only questionable thing is that maybe it would be good to ship webarchive URL and README file as %doc, not a blocker for me, though. Package looks sane. Review+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review