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=532590 --- Comment #18 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-20 14:13:46 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent but all its messages may be ignored. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/yaws-* yaws.ppc: W: no-soname /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/setuid_drv.so yaws.ppc: W: no-soname /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/yaws_sendfile_drv.so ^^^ this doesn't affect the runtime of the application. These libraries are designed to be dlopened. yaws.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/yaws_api.5.gz 201: warning: `yaws' not defined yaws.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/yaws.conf.5.gz 231: warning: `pp' not defined yaws.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/yaws.conf.5.gz 289: warning: `..' not defined ^^^ I'll report upstream about these warnings. yaws.ppc: E: zero-length /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/src/charset.def ^^^ this file is autogenerated and should be removed. In fact I'd rather to remove the entire %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/src contents - this is just a copy of the original sources, but I'm leaving it to you to decide. Just removing %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/src/charset.def would be enough to fix this particular warning. yaws-devel.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure ^^^ false positive yaws-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation ^^^ exactly what it says - no documentation for this package so far. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + 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 does not fully meet the Packaging Guidelines. You need a) Actually add erlang-ibrowse as a runtime dependency. b) remove empty %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/examples directories c) I just found that this package requires erlang >= R13B (missing httpc:request/1, httpc:request/4 and httpc:set_options/1 functions, and I'm not sure that this can be fixed easily). So no luck for poor EL-5 users for now. d) remove empty %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/src/charset.def (or even entire %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/src/ ) + 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. + 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 yaws-1.89.tar.gz* 577c8adde339b700373b83b57b7eca952a41624fcf5f963e43977399de54f170 yaws-1.89.tar.gz 577c8adde339b700373b83b57b7eca952a41624fcf5f963e43977399de54f170 yaws-1.89.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture (my ppc on F-12). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + 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 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 pkgconfig(.pc) file is stored in a -devel package. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). + 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). So, please, fix the remaining four issues 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