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=645184 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-23 04:34:38 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is NOT silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/Desktop/lua-wsapi-1.3.4-1.fc13.noarch.rpm lua-wsapi.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/lua/5.1/wsapi/sapi.lua 0644 /usr/bin/env 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: This issue is already addressed - see Tim's comments regarding it above. + 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 although I've got few questions. It seems that you didn't package the contents of src/fastcgi - is it intentional? You also didn't package src/launcher contents fully - is it intentional too? + 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 (MIT). + 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 wsapi-1.3.4.tar.gz* 37e0fb6b8692e333c387704c578e786455014810d864133d3203c0dbcab05af2 wsapi-1.3.4.tar.gz 37e0fb6b8692e333c387704c578e786455014810d864133d3203c0dbcab05af2 wsapi-1.3.4.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 (because no shared libraries from src/fastcgi and src/launcher are packaged) + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 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 must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. the directories /var/www/ and /var/ww/cgi-bin/ are currently owned by httpd. Directory /var/www/ is also co-owned by cherokee and thttpd. Yes, that becomes a problem since more and more alternative web-servers and libraries are included into Fedora and we must do something with it. Unfortunately we can't do too much in order to resolve this situation - we can a) Add totally bogus dependency on httpd b) Claim ownership on whole /var/www (as cherokee and thttpd already did) and as permitted by new guidelines. I recommend this way. Also I advice you to keep an eye on this issue (different http-server and directories/web-server agnostic expansion modules). + 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, please fix and/or comment the issues noted above, and I'll continue. -- 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