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=597307 --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-08-24 12:58:07 EDT --- rpmlint output: fastx_toolkit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, preprocessed fastx_toolkit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocess -> reprocess, p reprocess, processors fastx_toolkit.src:8: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 8) fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocessing -> reprocessing, p reprocessing, preprocessed fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US preprocess -> reprocess, p reprocess, processors fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fasta_clipping_histogram.pl fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastq_quality_trimmer fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_quality_stats fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastq_quality_filter fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_trimmer fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastq_quality_boxplot_graph.sh fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_barcode_splitter.pl fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastq_quality_converter fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_nucleotide_distribution_line_graph.sh fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fasta_formatter fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_collapser fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_renamer fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fasta_nucleotide_changer fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_reverse_complement fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastq_to_fasta fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_nucleotide_distribution_graph.sh fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastq_masker fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_artifacts_filter fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_uncollapser fastx_toolkit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fastx_clipper fastx_toolkit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fastx -> fast, fasts, fast x fastx_toolkit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fastx -> fast, fasts, fast x fastx_toolkit-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fastx -> fast, fasts, fast x fastx_toolkit-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fastx -> fast, fasts, fast x fastx_toolkit-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/fastx_toolkit-devel-0.0.13/galaxy/tools/fastx_toolkit/fastx_barcode_splitter_galaxy_wrapper.sh 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 30 warnings. - Check your tabs vs spaces. - Placing the galaxy stuff somewhere else than %doc gets rid of the exec perm warning. When packaging the galaxy stuff, be sure not to include any Makefiles or the like. - Please use http://hannonlab.cshl.edu/fastx_toolkit/ as the URL. It's nicer not to have macros in the URL, so one can cut'n'paste from the spec. - Don't ship the m4 files, as instructed by Michael. ** MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSWORK - License is AGPLv3+, not AGPLv3. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK 6d233ff4ae3d52c457d447179f073a56 fastx_toolkit-0.0.13.tar.bz2 6d233ff4ae3d52c457d447179f073a56 ../SOURCES/fastx_toolkit-0.0.13.tar.bz2 MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - As already pointed out by Michael, the build process overrides the Fedora optimization flags. - Use make %{?_smp_mflags} CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to correct this. - Also, please use make install INSTALL="install -p" to keep the time stamps in %install. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK - Maybe again make things a bit more verbose with %{_bindir}/fast* ? MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK EPEL: Clean section exists. OK EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A -- 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