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=618761 Mark Chappell <tremble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Mark Chappell <tremble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-28 05:08:37 EDT --- - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items [/] Versioned MODULE_COMPAT_ Requires [-] Non-Versioned CPAN URL tag [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2355956 [!] Rpmlint output: gold.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee gold.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timeframe -> time frame, time-frame, timeshare gold.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-2.1.12.2/LICENSE gold.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/goldg.conf gold.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-2.1.12.2/README gold.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gold.conf gold.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/goldd.conf gold.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gmkaccount ... Snip many similar messages ... gold.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glsproject gold.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee gold.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US timeframe -> time frame, time-frame, timeshare gold.src:96: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} gold.src:96: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} gold.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1} gold.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} gold.src:98: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} gold-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-2.1.12.2/LICENSE gold-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-doc-2.1.12.2/README gold-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-doc-2.1.12.2/LICENSE gold-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-2.1.12.2/README gold-web.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end gold-web.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-web-2.1.12.2/README gold-web.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gold-web-2.1.12.2/LICENSE 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 62 warnings. [/] Package is not relocatable. [/] Buildroot is correct ( Not needed if >= EL6 and >= F13 ) Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: BSD (http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-July/001338.html) [/] 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 is included in %doc. [/] With any Subpackage installed the license must also be installed (this may belong to another subpackage) [!] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. d2cd0943ea4d574f7c101510ad11d02d gold-2.1.12.2.tar.gz d2cd0943ea4d574f7c101510ad11d02d SOURCES/gold-2.1.12.2.tar.gz [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [!] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [/] Permissions on files are set properly. [/] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. ( Not needed if >= EL6 and >= F13 ) [/] Package consistently uses macros. [/] Package contains code, or permissible content. [/] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [/] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [/] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [/] Latest version is packaged. [/] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [/] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2355956 [/] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: fedora-rawhide (noarch) [?] Package functions as described. [/] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the tests pass === COMMENTS === Only the LICENSE file should be included in all the %doc stansas. (the rest should be based on what's appropriate, normally just the main package) While the spec file is legible, it's supposed to be en_US timeframe -> time frame, time-frame file-not-utf8 (LICENSE, README) # standard fix (preserving timestamps) iconv -f iso8859-1 -t utf8 README >README.utf8 touch -r README README.utf8 mv README.utf8 README Ignore the lack of man-page messages, upstream don't provide them and there is other documentation. non-conffile-in-etc (/etc/gold(|g|d).conf - Use the %conf macro macro-in-comment - Ignore, Is there a make test rule (that doesn't require a database)? If so it *should* be used. It's worth running a recent rpmlint over all the files before submitting, the EL-5 rpmlint is rather out of date. -- 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