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=628202 --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-10 08:13:15 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmling output isn't silent: work ~: rpmlint Desktop/gretl-* gretl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gretl_x11 gretl.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gretlcli gretl.i686: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/gretl.desktop value "Application;Science;Econometrics" for string list key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" does not have a semicolon (';') as trailing character gretl-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/gretl-1.9.1/plugin/heckit.c gretl-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. work ~: The two 'no-manual-page-for-binary' and one 'no-documentation' messages may be omitted, while the rest two should be fixed. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines. -- Lost of *.la files in %{_libdir}/gretl-gtk2 -- Duplicated COPYING file in %{_datadir}/%{name} -- Empty directory %{_datadir}/%{name}/doc - looks like a leftover. -- Bundled font files in %{_datadir}/%{name}/fonts -- Missing Requires: gtksourceview (owner of %{_datadir}/gtksourceview-1.0) + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. -/+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (GPLv3+) but does not reflect licensing conditions for 'cephes', 'minpack' and some plugins. Please add them (seems to be a BSD for minpack, MIT for plugin/mpack, but IANAL). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL: Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum gretl-1.9.1.tar.bz2* b46916828132cc6955ed20cf4c9816d17cae3f692368a245d56f8e55f3efda39 gretl-1.9.1.tar.bz2 b46916828132cc6955ed20cf4c9816d17cae3f692368a245d56f8e55f3efda39 gretl-1.9.1.tar.bz2.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (see koji link above) + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The spec file handles locales properly. + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. +/- The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. In fact I'm not quite sure because 'plugin/zipunzip' contains portions of zlib - please unvestigate this. 0 The package isn't designed to be relocatable + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files placed in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries (*.a) + The library files that end in .so (without suffix) placed in a -devel package. + devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - The package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. See my upper notes. -/+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file MUST be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. Unfortunately it is simply copied with 'install' utility, so, please use desktop-file-validate (adds additional BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils) to check that everything is ok + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. That's all so far. Please comment/fix issues, mentioned above, and I'll continue. -- 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