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=617592 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2010-08-08 15:04:30 EDT --- Sorry for having been a bit nit-picking. However, I think the package is more consistent now. Since docs are usually added with %doc, the Fedora guidelines define the namespace of the doc files to be %{name}. It doesn't matter where upstream wants to put them. If the package provided only html docs and no qch file, you would have to add them with %doc and they would therefore be placed in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}. A single additional doc variant (qch) should not lead to a change of the namespace. But maybe you can ask the upstream developer whether he might adapt the naming schemes of libaccounts-glib and libaccounts-qt. Here comes the formal review. The package looks fine and is ready now. You should update the referenced location of the upstream SRPM, though. Release 4 of the package is no longer available, but the tarball of release 5 equals that of your package too. $ rpmlint libaccounts-qt-*.rpm libaccounts-qt.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary account-tool libaccounts-qt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/accounts-qt-0.31/Accounts/.moc libaccounts-qt-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/accounts-qt-0.31/Accounts/.moc libaccounts-qt.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean libaccounts-qt.src: W: no-buildroot-tag libaccounts-qt.src: W: no-%clean-section libaccounts-qt.src: W: invalid-url Source0: accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. - the hidden dir is created by moc and is expected - the missing %clean section and buildroot is OK as the package is intended for F14+ only All warnings can safely be ignored. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] 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. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - LGPLv2 according to source file headers [+] MUST: The 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. $ md5sum accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz /home/martin/rpmbuild/SOURCES/accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz d6429682ff3623fcf0ddd2023603b491 accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz d6429682ff3623fcf0ddd2023603b491 accounts-qt-0.31.tar.gz.upstream [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. [+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [+] 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: If the source package does not include license text(s) ... [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [+] 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