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=592443 Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-03 10:37:38 EDT --- Ah well...I checked spec differences and they were cosmetic, but please be more careful next time :-) OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the antlrworks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nondeterminisms -> determinism, deterministic, indeterminably antlrworks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nondeterministic -> non deterministic, non-deterministic, deterministic antlrworks.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US refactoring -> re factoring, re-factoring, factoring antlrworks.noarch: E: devel-dependency java-devel antlrworks.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nondeterminisms -> determinism, deterministic, indeterminably antlrworks.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nondeterministic -> non deterministic, non-deterministic, deterministic antlrworks.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US refactoring -> re factoring, re-factoring, factoring antlrworks.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary antlrworks 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. You explained the devel dependency and it's OK. OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . 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 . OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 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. OK: The spec file must be written in American English. OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK: 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK(mock): 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 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. OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 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). NEEDSWORK: 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. You have to use desktop-file-install, not just desktop-file-validate since you are installing the file yourself. You also have to Require hicolor-icon-theme since you are using its directories. 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. Other: * patch1 has a small typo for suffix "browers" :-) * readme and release.txt should not be included the way they are because changes in upstream would never appear in the package on their own (caused by caching on Fedora dist servers). I would strongly advise working with upstream to provide these files inside release tarballs/zips. Or alternatively provide versioned release notes. In the meantime, just don't ship these (or just ship readme.txt), they will be useless on next release. -- 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