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=631763 --- Comment #10 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-01 13:20:15 EDT --- > $ rpmlint {SRPMS,RPMS/x86_64}/zif*-3.*rpm > zif.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US > zif.src: W: non-standard-group Unspecified > zif.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean > zif.src: W: no-buildroot-tag > zif.src: W: no-%clean-section > zif.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Unspecified All OK with current rpm. > zif.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libzif.so.1.0.1 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx OK. exit() is called only from egg_error_real() which is never used in the library. BTW, a clever use of unsafe linker options might even elimitate the function. > zif.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/zif.1.gz 1: warning: macro `\"' not defined > zif-devel.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Unspecified > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Can be ignored. Formal review ----------------------------- [OK] ... guideline matched [--] ... irrelevant guideline [??] ... needs discussion [!!] ... needs fixing ----------------------------- [OK] rpmlint posted [OK] Naming Guidelines [OK] spec file name matches package name [..] Packaging Guidelines: [OK] naming [OK] version and release [OK] legal [OK] no pre-built binaries [OK] spec legibility [OK] architecture support [OK] fs layout [OK] rpmlint [OK] changelog [OK] tags [OK] BuildRoot tag (not needed) [OK] %clean (not needed) [??] Requires I wonder what is special about sqlite-devel that it is required explicitly by zif-devel, but libarchive-devel is left to be pulled automatically via rpm's pkgconfig dependency extraction. [OK] BuildRequires [OK] Summary and description [OK] encoding [OK] documentation [OK] compiler flags [OK] debuginfo [OK] devel package [OK] requiring base package [OK] shared libraries [--] static libraries [OK] no duplication of system libraries [OK] no rpaths [--] config files [--] initscripts [--] desktop files [!!] macros %{_mandir} should be used instead of %{_datadir}/man/ [--] %global preferred over %define [--] handling of locale files [OK] timestamps [OK] parallel make [OK] scriptlets [--] conditional deps [OK] not relocatable [OK] code vs content [!!] file and dir ownership %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html is owned neither by zif-devel nor any Required package. Should Require gtk-doc? [OK] no duplicate files [OK] file permissions [--] users and groups [--] web apps [OK] no conflicts [OK] no kernel modules [OK] nothing under /srv [OK] no bundling [--] patches should have upstream bug link or comment [--] use of epochs [OK] symlinks [OK] man pages [--] application-specific guidelines [OK] approved license [OK] GPLv2+ is correct [OK] COPYING included in %doc [OK] American English [OK] legible spec [OK] source matches upstream, sha256sum: aefac3cce4310e942bf735ea259efc45ba32fbe1c7cb6461e7f74637fd5df2d5 [OK] builds successfully [--] ExcludeArch [OK] BuildRequires [--] locales [OK] ldconfig called [OK] no bundling [OK] not relocatable [!!] owning of directories, already noted above [OK] no listing files more than once [OK] permissions, %defattr usage [OK] consistent macro usage [OK] code or permissible content [--] large docs [OK] docs not necessary for runtime [OK] headers in -devel [--] static libs in -static [OK] *.so in -devel [OK] -devel requires base with a fully versioned dep [OK] no *.la archives [--] *.desktop for GUI apps [OK] no owning of directories already owned by other packages [OK] valid UTF-8 filenames -- 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