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=460974 --- Comment #21 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-02 06:25:24 EDT --- Ok thanks. Here is the review: +:ok, !:needs attention, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output xmobar.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> Minimalist, minimalist, minimalism xmobar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging xmobar.src: W: strange-permission xmobar-0.11.1.tar.gz 0640L xmobar.src: W: strange-permission xmobar.spec 0640L xmobar.src: W: no-buildroot-tag 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. xmobar.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> Minimalist, minimalist, minimalism xmobar.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging xmobar.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/xmobar xmobar.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/xmonadpropwrite xmobar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xmonadpropwrite xmobar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xmobar 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Ok [+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines [+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible. [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release 766fe504909384628321fb7472fdb621 xmobar-0.11.1.tar.gz [+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2442474 [+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] 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 permissable content. [NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [NA] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [!] 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. It would be best to add a desktop file. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Please also include the useful README file. Basically all fine but since this is a GUI program I think it needs a desktop file. You could probably take the one we added for xmonad as a starting point. -- 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