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=566725 --- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-19 04:58:05 EDT --- Koji scratch build for Fedora 14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2542475 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent, but all its messages may be ignored or resolution of mentioned issues may be postponed: gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dicom -> dicot, di com, di-com gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US huffman -> Huffman, huff man, huff-man gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings -> encoding, encoding s, encodes gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, massless gdcm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy ^^ these are false positives gdcm.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgdcmjpeg16.so.2.0.16 exit@xxxxxxxxx gdcm.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgdcmjpeg12.so.2.0.16 exit@xxxxxxxxx gdcm.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgdcmjpeg8.so.2.0.16 exit@xxxxxxxxx ^^ this should be reported upstream. gdcm-devel.i686: W: no-documentation ^^ this package just doesn't contain documentation gdcm-python.i686: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/_gdcmswig.so _gdcmswig.so ^^ this *should* be filtered out. See the following link for the details: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering gdcm-python.i686: W: no-documentation ^^ this package just doesn't contain documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. + 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines. + 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 (BSD). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be included in %doc. Please, add Copyright.txt as %doc. Also consider adding some other files to %doc. I believe that marking Examples directory as %doc in devel subpackage would be useful. + 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 gdcm-2.0.16.tar.bz2* f0e1d8e6a29976cdf71caa4ab84cbd8149464f4598f33682e751f3e9a956f265 gdcm-2.0.16.tar.bz2 f0e1d8e6a29976cdf71caa4ab84cbd8149464f4598f33682e751f3e9a956f265 gdcm-2.0.16.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 does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. There is a patched copy of a ijg-6b librarybut it can't be removed easily. 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. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + 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, here is the list of remaining items: * Add filtering for private python module * Add license files to %doc (and add more docs) -- 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