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=609169 --- Comment #2 from Hicham HAOUARI <hicham.haouari@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-02 00:42:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > rpmlint > > chatzilla.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary chatzilla > - I wouldn't worry about a man page for this + Fixed > chatzilla-gnome.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US irc -> Ric, > Irv, Ir > - Maybe just change this to "IRC" and add a period to the end of the sentence + Fixed > chatzilla-gnome.noarch: W: no-documentation > - This is fine + Fixed > chatzilla-gnome.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/gconf/schemas/chatzilla.schemas > - This is fine + False positive in this case > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > > 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. > - chatzilla-gnome should probably use "Requires: %{name} = > %{version}-%{release}" + Fixed > - You don't need a BuiltRoot for F10+ (unless you're going to branch in EL5) > - You don't need a %clean if you're only pushing to >= F-13 (and not EL5) + I am gonna push to F-12 also > [+] 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. > - All code I could find was triple licensed: MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+ + Fixed > [+] 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. > - Upstream: 9792a010e620a77c2502a8935c92373c > - SRPM: 9dfccd10b3ddb79841e11af48089362e + It is an archive generated from hg, as there are no releases > [+] 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. -- 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