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=641748 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-12 10:11:10 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent Ðwork ~/Desktop: rpmlint libdigidocpp-* perl-digidoc-0.3.0-1.fc15.i686.rpm php-digidoc-0.3.0-1.fc15.i686.rpm python-digidoc-0.3.0-1.fc15.i686.rpm libdigidocpp.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency libdigidoc(x86-32) libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK 2007 OCSP 2010.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/conf.xsd libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK 2007 OCSP.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK 2007.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/datatypes.dtd libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/KLASS3-SK 2010.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/TEST-SK.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK 2007.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/TEST-SK OCSP 2005.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/KLASS3-SK 2010 OCSP.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XMLSchema.dtd libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/KLASS3-SK OCSP 2009.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK 2007 OCSP 2010.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/XAdES.xsd libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/JUUR-SK.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/EID-SK OCSP 2006.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/KLASS3-SK.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK 2007 OCSP.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/certs/ESTEID-SK OCSP 2005.crt libdigidocpp.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/digidocpp/schema/OpenDocument_manifest.xsd libdigidocpp-devel.i686: W: no-documentation perl-digidoc.i686: W: no-documentation php-digidoc.i686: W: no-documentation php-digidoc.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/php.d/digidoc.ini python-digidoc.i686: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 28 warnings. work ~/Desktop: * All messages about non-conffile-in-etc in package "libdigidocpp" should be ignored - these files are not intended to be changed. In fact I believe that they should be installed in %{_datadir} - consider it in the future releases. * The message "non-conffile-in-etc" from php-digidoc should be ignored too - it contains library name for dlopening (I suppose) and also should not be changed. * The messsage "explicit-lib-dependency" really worries me - could you, please, explain why you need to explicitly add this dependency? + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. As for language-specific bindings, you reasonably added both lang-%{name} and %{name}-lang provides so no issues here. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. +/- The package should meet the Packaging Guidelines but there is something else wwhich worries me - you filtered list of automatic provides. Could you explain the reasons? + 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 (LGPLv2 or later). Also look at my note regarding bundled library. + 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 libdigidocpp-0.3.0.tar.bz2* 3147e8b657507db4d30d20b46a864c673b0bcd41b8e5530bdec6171dbfccf116 libdigidocpp-0.3.0.tar.bz2 3147e8b657507db4d30d20b46a864c673b0bcd41b8e5530bdec6171dbfccf116 libdigidocpp-0.3.0.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. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. - The package bundles copy of minizip library - src/minizip. Please, remove it or explain why it cant be done easily (heavy patched fork, as one of possible explanations). This also add another one license 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 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. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. +/- The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. No pkgconfig runtime requirement was added so this could be a blocker if you plan to use this library on some EL branches. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored 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. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, almost done. Here is a task list for you: * Explain why you need to explicitly added dependecy on libdigidoc(x86-32). * Explain why you filtered list of automatic provides for language-specific bindings? * Remove (or explain why it wouldn't be easy) bundled minizip. Not a blockers: * Consider storing immutable data (certificates and layout descriptions) in %{_datadir} instead of %{_sysconfdir} * Don't forget to add dependency on pkgconfig if you are planning to build on EL-5. -- 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