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=624204 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-06 19:01:25 EDT --- +:ok, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output % lintmock fedora-rawhide-x86_64 meego-panel-datetime.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version} meego-panel-datetime.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version} meego-panel-datetime.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name} meego-panel-datetime.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version} meego-panel-datetime.src: W: no-buildroot-tag meego-panel-datetime.src: W: invalid-url Source0: meego-panel-datetime-0.3.2.tar.bz2 meego-panel-datetime.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/date-time.schemas 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Looks good to me. [+] 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 sha1sum matches upstream release feddabd6d39bcd6557e3551e1c81ea0dd375e527 meego-panel-datetime-0.3.2.tar.bz2 feddabd6d39bcd6557e3551e1c81ea0dd375e527 ../../SOURCES/meego-panel-datetime-0.3.2.tar.bz2 [+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch Koji link above. [+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] 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. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] 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. [+] 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: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. Isn't there some %post/%postun scriptlet for gconf schemas now? Or is that it's replacement? I see some drafts on the wiki (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf). Also the tarball commands are missing a cd into the repository. Will appove once the scriptlets are added (if they are needed). -- 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