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=608206 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-06-26 15:35:26 EDT --- rpmlint output: zn_poly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zn -> Zn, z, n zn_poly.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nZ -> NZ, Zn, n zn_poly.src:48: W: configure-without-libdir-spec zn_poly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zn -> Zn, z, n zn_poly.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nZ -> NZ, Zn, n zn_poly-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zn -> Zn, z, n zn_poly-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zn -> Zn, z, n zn_poly-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zn -> Zn, z, n zn_poly-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zn -> Zn, z, n zn_poly-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nZ -> NZ, Zn, n zn_poly-devel.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libzn_poly.so zn_poly-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation zn_poly-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) zn -> Zn, z, n zn_poly-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zn -> Zn, z, n zn_poly-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nZ -> NZ, Zn, n zn_poly-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 15 warnings. - You can fix the configure-without-libdir warning by replacing ./configure --cflags="%{optflags} -fPIC" --prefix=%{_prefix} \ --gmp-prefix=%{_prefix} \ --ntl-prefix=%{_prefix} \ --flint-prefix=%{_prefix} with python makemakefile.py \ --cflags="%{optflags} -fPIC" --prefix=%{_prefix} \ --gmp-prefix=%{_prefix} --ntl-prefix=%{_prefix} \ --flint-prefix=%{_prefix} > makefile - Fix the no-ldconfig-symlink either by patching makemakefile.py so that libzn_poly.so becomes a symlink, or by replacing the installed duplicate with a symlink at the end of %install. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK - Specifying the multiple license scenario is OK, although you could shorten it to "GPLv2 or GPLv3", since that's what comes out at the end. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK 0eeaae2524addf558de94bfbc914d22e zn_poly-0.9.tar.gz 0eeaae2524addf558de94bfbc914d22e ../SOURCES/zn_poly-0.9.tar.gz MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - Preserve time stamps in %install by adding -p (or -a) to the cp argument. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK - I recommend using a trailing / for directories in %files to make it clearer, i.e. %{_includedir}/zn_poly/ MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Don't include README, it only contains instructions for compilation, which aren't relevant to the binary rpm. - Maybe include doc/REFERENCES ? MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK - There's nothing wrong with shipping static libraries (in -static), but normally it isn't done in Fedora. - If you want, you can just not ship the static library by either not installing it in %install, or by deleting it at the end of %install. MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK -- 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