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=579230 Alex Orlandi <nyrk71@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nyrk71@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Alex Orlandi <nyrk71@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-03 17:04:31 EDT --- Hi Andrea, I'm very glad to review your package. The review is mostly based on MUST/SHOULD checklist published in the ReviewGuidelines. Notation: [+]: OK [-]: KO [?]: doubt [N]: Not applicable Review: [+]:rpmlint run (clean) on every package with the following output: rpmlint upnp-inspector.spec ../RPMS/noarch/upnp-inspector-0.2.2-1.fc12.noarch.rpm ../SRPMS/upnp-inspector-0.2.2-1.fc12.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [?]:The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines (see below) [+]:The spec matches the base package %{name} [+]:The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [+]:License is MIT (OK) . [+]:The License field in the package spec matches the actual license. [+]:LICENCE file contains text of "MIT, Modern Style with sublicense" and is included in %doc. [+]:The spec file must be written in American English. [+]:The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+]:The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. md5sum ../SOURCES/UPnP-Inspector-0.2.2.tar.gz /tmp/UPnP-Inspector-0.2.2.tar.gz 6823a57f4501c8af6a7b8547b8133759 ../SOURCES/UPnP-Inspector-0.2.2.tar.gz 6823a57f4501c8af6a7b8547b8133759 /tmp/UPnP-Inspector-0.2.2.tar.gz [+]:The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86; considering that is a noarch package may be sufficient. [N]:If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [...] [+]:All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines. [N]:The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [N]: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. [+]:Package doesn't bundle copies of system libraries. [+]:The package is not relocatable [+]:The package owns 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. [+]:A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+]:Permissions on files are set properly. [+]:Use of macros is consistent [+]:The package contains code and permissable content. [+]:-doc package not needed: doc stuff is almost inexistent :-) [+]:doc stuff doesn't affect the runtime of the application. [N]:Header files must be in a -devel package. [N]:Static libraries must be in a -static package. [N]: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. [N]:[...] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [...] [N]:Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [+]:Package includes upnp-inspector.desktop file properly installed with desktop-file-install [+]:Packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+]:rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install [+]:all filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD items [N]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [N]:The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available [+]:Builds on mock [+]:The package build on all supported architectures [is noarch] (see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2093598) [+]:The program starts correctly (unfortunately I don't have a DLNA so I can't check more in depth) [+]:If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [N]:Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+]:No pkgconfig(.pc) files (no -devel package needed) [+]:Package doesn't have file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin [-]:package doesn't contain man pages (see below) Two issues (not blocking): * Package name should be ok, considered that "[...] case should only be used where necessary." Anyway guidelines say "Keep in mind to respect the wishes of the upstream maintainers. [...] However, if they do not express any preference of case, you should default to lowercase naming.". It could be good to consider to check upstream's preference. *Package doesn't contain man pages and there's no online help in the application: consider to work with upstream to add man pages (or doc in the help menu of the program) -- 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