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=648254 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-04 04:19:04 EDT --- One (non-blocker) suggestion - I suspect that the contents of %{_libdir}/%{name} are dlopened, right? Then no need to use versioned soname for them (if they are dlopened and not linked at compile time). Please, consider adding -avoid-version or something similar (depending on your buildsystem) to libtool command line in the next releases of Fawkes. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is NOT silent, but all its messages were explained by submitter (see above). I decided not to post this really huge text here. + 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. + 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 fawkes-0.4.tar.bz2* 8bd9a44c070eec07323846f069be4c3dbdb6c54bb3a9312285ea14614b9ea80d fawkes-0.4.tar.bz2 8bd9a44c070eec07323846f069be4c3dbdb6c54bb3a9312285ea14614b9ea80d fawkes-0.4.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. There are several unneeded BuildRequires listed (from default build root set) but listing them explicitly is not a blocker and might help other distribution's maintainers to adapt this spec-file easily. 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. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. Please, add %dir %{_datadir}/fawkes to fawkes-core %files section. + 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. + 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. - The package includes a %{name}.desktop files, and this files should be validated with with desktop-file-validate in the %install section. + 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. So here is a summary: * Add %dir %{_datadir}/fawkes to fawkes-core %files section. * Validate installed *.desktop files with desktop-file-validate in the %install section. -- 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