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=634622 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-17 06:01:53 EDT --- Review: FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output: eclipse-p2-discovery.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/eclipse-p2-discovery-1.0.0/license.html eclipse-p2-discovery.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/eclipse-p2-discovery-1.0.0/epl-v10.html These files should not have executable permission set. eclipse-p2-discovery.src: W: strange-permission eclipse-p2-discovery-fetch-src.sh 0755L So does this one. OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. OK: The spec file must be written in American English. OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK: Each package must consistently use macros. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Please fix the rpmlint issues pointed and I'll approve and sponsor you. Btw, please think about using better compression for the tarball e.g. xz will give you ~30% smaller tarball -- 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