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=225940 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-04 14:29:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the > review. > javacc.src: W: strange-permission javacc.sh 0755L > javacc.src: W: strange-permission jjtree 0755L > javacc.src: W: strange-permission jjdoc 0755L > javacc.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/javacc > javacc-demo.noarch: W: no-documentation > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. > > Those permissions are easily solved. You first copy those 3 shell > scripts to bin/ and then install them from there. I would suggest > chmodding them to non-executable inside src.rpm and only install them > like this: > > install -pD -T -m 755 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/javacc.sh > > no need to copy them to bin/ first I believe... > Rest are false positives. Fixed. > > 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. > > It would be good to use %{version} in Source0 so it will be (a bit) easier to > update in case any new releases > appear... Fixed. > > 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. > > Thing about installing those script applies of course... > > OK: Each package must consistently use macros. > > But spec file mixes cp and install. I'd suggest exchanging lines: > mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mavenpomdir} > cp -p pom.xml $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP-%{name}.pom > > with: > install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mavenpomdir} > install -pm 644 pom.xml $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP-%{name}.pom > > or even better: > install -pD -T -m 644 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP-%{name}.pom 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). > > But maybe it would be good to rename -manual subpackage to -doc? On the other > hand, adding provides/obsoletes is probably more messy now. I'll leave it up to > you. I prefer to keep it as manual. > > OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of > the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly > if it is not present. > 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: > - you can remove "section free" definition Done. > - I would suggest moving examples from /usr/share/javacc/examples to > /usr/share/doc/javacc/examples Fixed. -- 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