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=617405 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-10 10:53:32 EDT --- Sorry it took so long. OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm poezio.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary poezio 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv3 only) OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 4cca396fe4d520f9884a65c546100b76 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 (noarch package) N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - 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. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg N/A - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid Some minor issues. None of them is really important, this more meant to be a little education for Tom. Please change the %global at the beginning of the spec as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Macros Please don't use articles like "A" or "An" in the summary, just "IRC-like jabber (XMPP) console client" is fine. mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name} mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/data mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/src at least the first line is not necessary. The whole thing could be boiled down to mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/{data,src} Please preserve timestamps during %install with install -p, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps Also preserve the timestamps when removing the shebangs from files, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Remove_shebang_from_Python_libraries Instead of %{_datadir}/%{name} better use the %{_datadir}/%{name}/ The trailing / is to indicate it is a directory and not a file. This doesn't make a difference to rpm, but helps other humans to read the spec. For the launcher I'd rather use: # create launcher cat > %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} <<EOF #!/usr/bin/env sh cd %{_datadir}/poezio/src/ && python poezio.py EOF None of these things really is a blocker. Please apply the changes (or at least the ones that you think are useful) and consider the package APPROVED. -- 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