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=590387 --- Comment #4 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-18 08:27:16 EDT --- rpmlint *.rpm lcms2.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US lcms2.src: W: non-standard-group Unspecified lcms2.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean lcms2.src: W: no-buildroot-tag lcms2.src: W: no-%clean-section lcms2.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Unspecified lcms2.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lcms2-2.0/AUTHORS lcms2.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lcms2-2.0/COPYING lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmswtpnt.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/utils/transicc/transicc.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmserr.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsxform.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsplugin.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsgmt.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmscnvrt.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/include/lcms2_plugin.h lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/utils/common/utils.h lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsio1.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmstypes.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/utils/common/vprf.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsopt.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/utils/jpgicc/iccjpeg.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmspcs.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/utils/common/xgetopt.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmspack.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsps2.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsio0.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsgamma.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsvirt.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmssamp.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/utils/jpgicc/jpgicc.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/utils/psicc/psicc.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsnamed.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsintrp.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/utils/linkicc/linkicc.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmssm.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmscgats.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsmd5.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmscam02.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/utils/tificc/tificc.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmslut.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/lcms2_internal.h lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/src/cmsmtrx.c lcms2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/lcms-2.0/include/lcms2.h lcms2-utils.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Unspecified lcms2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lcms2-utils-2.0/AUTHORS lcms2-utils.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/jpgicc2.1.gz 40: warning: `p' not defined lcms2-utils.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/lcms2-utils-2.0/COPYING lcms2-utils.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/tificc2.1.gz 52: warning: `p' not defined lcms2-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary psicc2 lcms2-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary linkicc2 lcms2-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary transicc2 non-standard-group Unspecified, spurious-executable-perm and no-%clean-section(if you want to push lcms2 to stable branches or EL6) should be fixed. formal review here: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this list and more] [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: 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. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. <<md5sum checksum>>c4f115462a7a5b306c247d018d7a8982 [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: 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. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [-] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [-] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] MUST: 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [=] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Some trival issue: 1.Version: 2.0 -> Version: 2.0a, in this case non-numeric is permiteed. 2.fix some rpm warings, see above. 3. %doc AUTHORS COPYING in -utils is not needed. 4. I suggest to change Summary: Color Management System to Summary: Color Management Engine -- 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