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=542990 --- Comment #23 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2010-07-21 16:26:26 EDT --- Review: root: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542990 Date: Jun 26th 2010. Mock Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2274688, F14 works. * FAIL: rpmlint output See attachment above for full output, this is the summary for each of the errors/warnings. 1) SPECS/root.spec:23: W: macro-in-comment %{version} this is okay since the comment is actually a recipie to create a versioned tar ball. 2) root.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US histogramming -> histogram, deprogramming, reprogramming To me it makes sense to change it just to histogram. 3) root-cint.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/root/CallFunc.h As you explained and I agree root completly breaks the normal runtime/devel split basically and these .h files are needed runtime. 4) root-proofd.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name proofd ('root-proofd', 'root-proofdd') root-rootd.x86_64: W: incoherent-init-script-name rootd ('root-rootd', 'root-rootdd') Fine the service is called proofd and rootd 5) root-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/libPyROOT.so libPyROOT.so.5.26()(64bit) This can be fixed via a filter or something presumably. 6) root-core.x86_64: E: rpath-in-buildconfig /usr/bin/root-config lines ['42'] Well explained above. * PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. * PASS: spec file name same as base package %{name}. Yes but I wish it wasn't called root - confusing but anyway. :-) * PASS: Packaging Guidelines. * PASS: Approved license in .spec file. - LGPLv2+ - doc package is GPLv2+ and BSD - fftw, unuran, mathmore, GPLv2+ * NOTCOMPLETE: License on Source code. * PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. * FAIL: Written in American English. histogramming is not a word. * PASS: Spec file legible. * PASS: Included source must match upstream source. * PASS: Build on one architecture. See mock build. * FAIL: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. Although you have ExcludeArch: ppc64 there is no explanation as to why. Should there be a bug somewhere at least? Also you cint you on build on %{ix86} x86_64 but no explanation why. * PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. Mock build * PASS: Handle locales properly. No locales * PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. * PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries. * PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. Not relocatable. * PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates * PASS: No duplicate files in %files listings. * PASS: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr * PASS: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does. * PASS: Each package must consistently use macros. * PASS: The package must contain code, or permissable content. * PASS: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. There is a doc package. * PASS: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. * PASS: Header files must be in a -devel package. So this is special case, header files are really runtime for cint. * PASS: Static libraries must be in a -static package. None * PASS: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' * PASS: devel packages must require the exact base package * PASS: No .la libtool archives * PASS: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file %{_datadir}/applications/root.desktop * PASS: No files or directories already owned by other packages. * PASS: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). * PASS: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Summary: 1) Correct histograming spelling. 2) Try and remove the provides of libPyROOT.so.5.26()(64bit) 3) I'm sure it says on the fedora pages some where to use sed rather than dos2unix but can't find it now. 4) Explanation for the excludearch of ppc. 5) Explanation for %{ix86} x86_64 and -cint package. I just want to look some more through the source for licensing. -- 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