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=660095 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-12-05 10:11:28 EST --- rpmlint output: impressive.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary python-impressive impressive.src: W: no-buildroot-tag 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ** The summary would be better as "A program that displays presentation slides" ** The install scenario is a bit odd. I'd probably just install impressive.py as %{_bindir}/impressive, but for some reason the past maintainer has implemented a wrapper for checking that the hardware has OpenGL acceleration. The install of the wrapped python script as %{_bindir}/python-impressive seems a bit silly. I'd install it as %{python_sitelib}/impressive.py. ** This is a Python package, so you should add BuildRequires: python-devel to make sure everything goes alright. ** MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. ~OK - Upstream uses the upper-case name Impressive, also in the tarball. However, the program in the tarball is "impressive.py", which would point to a lower-case name. - It's better to keep the name in lowercase, since the package already exists in Fedora. MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK 1fefb25db71ee322a59353de85ae00b4 Impressive-0.10.3.tar.gz 1fefb25db71ee322a59353de85ae00b4 ../SOURCES/Impressive-0.10.3.tar.gz MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. N/A MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A - demo.pdf is quite large in comparison to the other files, but I guess this is OK. MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A - Although the application is graphical, it needs to be launched from the command prompt. MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK EPEL: Clean section exists. OK EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A -- 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