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=634906 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-20 06:19:37 EDT --- Koji scratch build for F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2476815 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint isnt' silent: work ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/http-parser-* http-parser.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syscalls -> miscalls, systemically, scallops http-parser.i686: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/libhttp_parser.so.0.3 http-parser.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libhttp_parser.so.0.3 http-parser.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libhttp_parser.so.0.3 http-parser-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US htt -> ht, hit, hat http-parser-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. work ~: In particular, ldconfig-related messages are definitely must be addressed (see my notes below). - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Please, mention particular git commit ID in the package's version. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - The package doesn't fully meet the Packaging Guidelines: 1. The mentioned above issue with missing ldconfig invocation in %post and %postun sections 2. The package's versioning scheme must contain git commit id. + 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. (MIT) + 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 must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. I can't use md5/sha256 here since tarball contains timestamps, uids, gids and other mutable data. I just diffed them against local copy (fetched as described in spec). Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD: diff -ru http-parser.orig/ http-parser Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD: + 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. 0 No need to handle locales. - Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. See my notes above. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not 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 are in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The library files that end in .so (without suffix) placed in a -devel package. + The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8. OK, sommarizing things - I've found only two issues - ldconfig and git id in version. Please fix them and I'll finish my review. -- 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