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=561456 --- Comment #4 from Mohammed Morsi <mmorsi@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-24 17:41:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > NOTOK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the > review. > NOTOK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming > NOTOK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > > Output: > jnr-x86asm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asmjit -> Asmara, Asquith, > fajitas > jnr-x86asm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asmjit -> Asmara, > Asquith, fajitas > jnr-x86asm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jnr-x86asm-0.1.tgz > jnr-x86asm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asmjit -> Asmara, Asquith, > fajitas > jnr-x86asm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asmjit -> Asmara, > Asquith, fajitas > jnr-x86asm-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asm -> as, am, mas > jnr-x86asm-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asm -> as, > am, mas > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. I'm ignoring all the spelling errors as it's complaining about 'asmjit' which is a legit part of the package summary / description. (Also I'm not seeing those warnings locally, running rpmlint against the SRPM doesn't yield those spelling errors) > > While spec file explains how to create Source0 it fails to provide > reliable way to verify no changes happened between Source0 was taken > and building of RPM. You need to specify git hash (part of it at > least) of commit that should be checked out after cloning. Once some > version is released by developer, it would be ideal if git tag hash was > used instead. > FIXED. It seems the upstream author released a project tarball not long after I uploaded this package, so now I'm just using that. > This also applies to naming of package. This is most certainly a > pre-relase so naming convetions are these: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages > This is not a pre-release. This is the 0.1 release. According to that wiki link a prerelease would be something like 0.2alpha or what not. > > OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. . > OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the > Licensing Guidelines . > NOTOK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > > License of package is obviously LGPLv3 not MIT FIXED. > > OK: 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. > > License is included, but it would be good to include COPYING* files > too especially since COPYING file has the text of license itself. DONE > > OK: The spec file must be written in American English. > OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of > those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. > OK: A 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. > OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's > %files listings. > OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with > executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > NOTOK: Each package must consistently use macros. > you mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Pick one and stick to it > FIXED > OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of > large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to > size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). > OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. > The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the > files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for > example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the > files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that > you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, > then please present that at package review time. > OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > > Please fix those naming/Source0 URL/license/macro problems, so that I can > approve this package. All are fixed save the 'naming' issue, which I'm not sure as to what you are referring to. I also included the jpackage-utils dependency for the javadoc. New SPEC / SRPM: Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/jruby/jnr-x86asm.spec SRPM URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/jruby/jnr-x86asm-0.1-2.fc11.src.rpm -- 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