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=616120 Maxim Burgerhout <maxim@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |maxim@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |maxim@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #1 from Maxim Burgerhout <maxim@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-22 15:51:20 EDT --- == MUST == [x] Run rpmlint on all parts of the package and post output spacecmd.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/spacecmd 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. I agree files in /etc/bash_completion.d should not have %config [x] Package is named according to Naming Guidelines [x] Specfile matches %{name}.spec [x] Package matches Packaging Guidelines [x] Package license matches Licensing Guidelines [x] Actual license is in License tag in spec file [x] License text in %doc if applicable [x] Spec file is in English [x] Spec file is legible [x] MD5 sum of sources match upstream MD5 sum (through Source0) [x] Must compile on at least *one* major architecture [-] If package does not compile, it has ExcludeArch for that architecture, with a bug filed for the architecture the package does not build on [-] Build-time dependencies are in BuildRequires [-] Uses %find_lang if appropriate; *not* %{_datadir}/locale/* [-] Calls ldconfig in %post and %postun if carries libraries [x] Does not carry copies of system libraries [x] Doesn't do explicit relocatability [!] Owns all directories it creates; if it uses a directory it does not create itself, it should depend on the package that *does* create it spacecmd should own /etc/bash_completion.d: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_own_files_in_a_common_directory_but_none_of_them_needs_to_require_the_others. %{rhnroot} (/usr/share/rhn) is not owned by any packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes spacecmd should either depend on the package that creates %{rhnroot} or own it. [x] Has sane permissions, defattr() in every %files section [!] Consistently uses macros According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define it is preferred to use %global instead of %define [x] Contains only code or permissable content [-] Large documentation goes in -doc package [-] Header files go in -devel package [-] static libraries go in -static package [-] Libaries without a numeric suffix (.so.1.1) mostly go in -devel package [-] Devel package requires base package like this [-] All .la libtool archives are removed from the package [-] GUI apps include a %{name}.desktop file [x] Does not conflict with other packages in file ownership [-] Filenames are in UTF-8 === SHOULD == [-] If license text is not in separate file, query upstream to do so [-] If available, the summary and description in the spec can be in other languages than English too [x] Test build in mock [x] Builds on all architectures [x] Runs [x] Scriptlets in spec file must be sane [-] Subpackages require the base package [-] .pc files go in -devel, mostly, unless the package is a devel tool, like gcc [-] requires packages, not files in packages [-] Try to have upstream create and add manpages for all binaries There's a couple of issues with the package at the moment. They're marked with a [!] above. There is one bigger issue with the RPM as it is now though and that is the fact that it does not contain *.pyc and *.pyo files when built in mock or Koji. The RPM *should* contain those files in order to be able to properly cleaning up when upgrading or uninstalling. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Files_to_include -- 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