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=620177 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-05 08:42:50 EDT --- Fedora review uprof-0.2-0.2.b620fb7f9.fc13.src.rpm 2010-08-05 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint uprof uprof-devel uprof-0.2-0.2.b620fb7f9.fc15.src.rpm uprof-debuginfo-0.2-0.2.b620fb7f9.fc15.i686.rpm uprof.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libuprof-0.2.so.0.0.0 /lib/librt.so.1 uprof.src: W: invalid-url Source0: uprof-0.2-b620fb7f9.tar.bz2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. + Rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored ! The Release tag doesn't follow Package Naming Guidelines. Instead of "0.2.b620fb7f9" you should use "0.2.YYYYMMDDgitb620fb7f9" or just plain "0.2.YYYYMMDDgit" as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages + Spec file name matches the base package name ! Actual compiler commands aren't visible in the build logs Please turn off libtool "shave" mode so that it'd be possible to check compiler flags. It's usually enough to pass V=1 to make command. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The package contains license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Following instructions in the spec file to check out sources from upstream git repo produce matching tarball. md5sum: c6d435870591f04202a3c262c46df5d0 uprof-0.2-b620fb7f9.tar.bz2 c6d435870591f04202a3c262c46df5d0 uprof.git/uprof-0.2-b620fb7f9.tar.bz2 + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly + ldconfig is properly called in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code, or permissable content. n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc don't affect the package + Header files are in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static + Library files that end in .so are in -devel package + -devel requires the fully versioned base + Package doesn't contain any libtool .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8 It would also be nice if you could avoid building the static library by using --disable-static as mentioned in comment #3, but this isn't a review blocker. Please address the issues mentioned in this comment and I'll evaluate the package for final approval. -- 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