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=639346 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-04 07:10:59 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable rpmlint is not silent: work ~: rpmlint Desktop/gudev-sharp-* gudev-sharp.i686: E: no-binary gudev-sharp.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gudev-sharp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. work ~: However all these messages have the same origin as the similar messages in case of pure erlang applications: we're installing (almost) arch-independent data into arch-dependent directory. But this is the way how it is designed to work, so we should disregard these messages. + 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 almost meets the Packaging Guidelines except the issue with unowned directory (see below). + 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. Seems to be strict LGPLv2 (w/o notice regarding possible relicensing under further LGPLv2+ licenses). + 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, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum mono-gudev-sharp-GUDEV_SHARP_0_1-0-g2c53e2f.tar.gz* 37f41e617274a0ab714fb85b57da24ce0c29e24fcf373fec80eb99b6464ca2fb mono-gudev-sharp-GUDEV_SHARP_0_1-0-g2c53e2f.tar.gz 37f41e617274a0ab714fb85b57da24ce0c29e24fcf373fec80eb99b6464ca2fb mono-gudev-sharp-GUDEV_SHARP_0_1-0-g2c53e2f.tar.gz.1 Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Unfortunately it doesn't claim ownership on %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}-1.0. Please fix it (simply listing %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}-1.0 instead of %{_libdir}/mono/%{name}-1.0/%{name}.dll would be enough). + 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 has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + 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. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. + The "devel" sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}/ + The pkgconfig(.pc) file is properly placed in *-devel sub-package and necessary runtime dependency is added. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + 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. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Almost done. Please fix the issue with unowned directory and I'll finish this 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