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=576838 Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |steve.traylen@xxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2010-03-28 14:34:35 EDT --- Review: glue-schema Date: Mar 28th 2010 Mock Build: F14-x86_64 builds. * PASS: rpmlint output $ rpmlint SPECS/glue-schema.spec \ SRPMS/glue-schema-2.0.3-3.448.fc12.src.rpm \ RPMS/noarch/glue-schema-2.0.3-3.448.fc12.noarch.rpm \ SPECS/glue-schema.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: glue-schema-2.0.3-448.tar.gz glue-schema.src: W: invalid-url Source0: glue-schema-2.0.3-448.tar.gz 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. which is expected since source is created from svn. * PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. * PASS: spec file name same as base package %{name}. * FAIL: Packaging Guidelines. Add a -p to the install line. * PASS: Approved license in .spec file. * PASS: License on Source code. Yes, some files are http://www.cnaf.infn.it/license.html which is indeed BSD with advertising and some are copyright only. * PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. debian/copyright file included. * PASS: Written in American English. * PASS: Spec file legible. * PASS: Included source must match upstream source. Checking out and removing the .svn files as per instructions: diff -r --brief glue-schema-2.0.3-448 ../SPECS/glue-schema-2.0.3-448/ produces nothing. * PASS: Build on one architecture. * NOTCHECKED: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. It should build anywhere. * PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. * PASS: Handle locales properly. no locales. * PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. No libs present. * PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries. No libs. * PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. Not relocatable. * PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates /etc/ldap and /etc/ldap/schema are owned. * PASS: No duplicate files in %files listings. * PASS: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr * PASS: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). * PASS: Each package must consistently use macros. * PASS: The package must contain code, or permissable content. * PASS: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. None present but see comment below. * PASS: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. * PASS: Header files must be in a -devel package. None present. * PASS: Static libraries must be in a -static package. None present. * PASS: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' None present. * PASS: Then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. None present. * PASS: devel packages must require the exact base package None present. * PASS: No .la libtool archives None present. * PASS: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file None present. * PASS: No files or directories already owned by other packages. None present. * PASS: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). * PASS: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Summary: Add a '-p' to the install but also there is an INSTALL script even it is oddly named that could be used instead. Given it only contains this there is not lot of point in using it but given it could be with the addition of '-p' then I leave it up to you to decide if it you think it makes sense. Whatever the -p should be added somehow. There is no documentation but given the web site has pdf representation of the schema maybe it could be included as a second source in a doc package? http://forge.ogf.org/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.glue-wg/docman.root.published_documents Your choice. -- 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