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=533558 --- Comment #6 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti <promac@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-16 15:38:45 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Thanks. This looks pretty good. rpmlint says: > > gtkwhiteboard.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-xlib > Which is bogus. > > gtkwhiteboard.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gtkwhiteboard-1.3/linuxWiimoteLib.py > Why is this file executable? Actually, why are any of the .py files > executable? They're not intended to be run directly. This should be fixed. Just to make rpmlint happy. Otherwise, we get: [cascavel:/home/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result] rpmlint gtkwhiteboard-1.3-4.fc14.noarch.rpm gtkwhiteboard.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python-xlib gtkwhiteboard.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gtkwhiteboard-1.3/gtkwhiteboard.py 0644 /usr/bin/python gtkwhiteboard.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gtkwhiteboard-1.3/mousecontrol.py 0644 /usr/bin/python gtkwhiteboard.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gtkwhiteboard-1.3/perspective.py 0644 /usr/bin/env gtkwhiteboard.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/gtkwhiteboard-1.3/whiteboard.py 0644 /usr/bin/python gtkwhiteboard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gtkwhiteboard 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 1 warnings. What should I do? Keep the files 755 or use 644 and get those warnings? > > gtkwhiteboard.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gtkwhiteboard > It would be nice to have a manual page but it's not mandatory. > > Where did whii.png come from? I am concerned that a picture of a Wii > controller with the Wii logo visible as an icon may pose a legal issue. > Perhaps I'm just being paranoid, but I know Nintendo is fond of lawsuits so it > would be good to have the legal folks give their OK. I suspect that if this is > an issue, fixing it should be easy since the icon does not come from upstream > at all. If it came from someplace on the net, that may also pose a copyright > issue. I think I just cut and paste from here: http://computer.yourdictionary.com/images/computer/_WII.GIF The picture is really nice for an icon ... > > The desktop file has a problem: > > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gtkwhiteboard-1.3-3.fc14.x86_64/usr/share/applications/gtkwhiteboard.desktop: > error: (will be fatal in the future): value "GNOME" in key "Categories" in > group "Desktop Entry" requires another category to be present among the > following categories: GTK This is easy to fix. > > * source files match upstream. sha256sum: > 9610f498bb1711aff2898fdaa9533319fbb2fb74c7b2588c8387b969ed510e2c > gtkwhiteboard-1.3.zip > * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. > * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. > * summary is OK. > * description is OK. > * dist tag is present. > * license field matches the actual license (for the code, at least). > * license is open source-compatible. > * license text included in package (in README file). > * latest version is being packaged. > * BuildRequires are proper. > * package builds in mock (14, x86_64). > * package installs properly. > X rpmlint has valid complaints. > * final provides and requires are sane: > gtkwhiteboard = 1.3-3.fc14 > = > /bin/sh > /usr/bin/env > /usr/bin/python > pybluez > python(abi) = 2.7 > python-xlib > wxPython > > * owns the directories it creates. > * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. > * no duplicates in %files. > X file permissions are odd. > * no generically named files > * code, not content. > * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. > * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. > X desktop file has an error. I am looking forward to hearing from you, so I can produce the final .src.rpm version. Thanks. -- 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
