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=225783 Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(nobody@fedoraproj | |ect.org) | --- Comment #25 from Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-03-09 10:51:20 EST --- + MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review Sources used when checking (from Fedora CVS for F-13): johanka:F-13$ md5sum gdb.spec gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2 b0dadd6e0bf07f2d73ce87c53538edcc gdb.spec 9d52988c5b2a2085e0ee5df89393e5a0 gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2 (plus 117 patches for which I haven't calculated md5sums) johanka:F-13$ rpmlint -i gdb-7.0.90.20100306-20.fc13.src.rpm x86_64/gdb-*.rpm gdb.src: W: strange-permission gdb-6.8-bz457187-largefile-test.patch 0775L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. gdb.src: W: invalid-url Source4: libstdc++-v3-python-r155978.tar.bz2 The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. gdb.src: W: invalid-url Source0: gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2 The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyc This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyc This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyo This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyc This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.pyc This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.py This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.py This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: postin-without-ldconfig /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.py This package contains a library and its %post scriptlet doesn't call ldconfig. gdb.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/share/gdb/auto-load/usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.13-gdb.py This package contains a library and provides no %postun scriptlet containing a call to ldconfig. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 3 warnings. johanka:F-13$ (for explanation of the above warnings see the previous comments here) NO PROBLEM HERE + MUST: package 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 . Package far exceeds level of the Packaging Guidelines. (I would probably make pearls like ! find -name "*.rej" # Should not happen. more readable, but certainly whole spec is very correct). + 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 I went through whole gdb and found it to be incredible collection of all possible licenses, so that my proposed License tag is License: GPLv3+ and GFDL and GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ and GPLv3+ with exceptions and LGPLv2+ and and GPL+ and Public Domain (all on one line) + 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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task >From srpm: 9d52988c5b2a2085e0ee5df89393e5a0 gdb-7.0.90.20100306.tar.bz2 04e5c4b1b9e633422cc48990fe61958d libstdc++-v3-python-r155978.tar.bz2 = MATCHES + MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture - build in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2039459 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 Build in koji 0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro No locales 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. Not appllicable 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 Please fix the License field. -- 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