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=663018 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-11 05:41:54 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent work ~: rpmlint Desktop/gnome-guitar-* gnome-guitar.x86_64: E: no-binary gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ^^^ This is a mono package - it does installs bytecode into arch-dependent locations. gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/gconf/schemas/libgnomeguitar.schemas ^^^ gconf data must not use (noreplace) so it's ok too. gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-scale gnome-guitar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gnome-chord ^^^ It's Ok too. Still no man-pages for these binaries. gnome-guitar-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure ^^^ False positive. Should be ignored. gnome-guitar-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ No documentation for this sub-package. So should be ignored too, 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. work ~: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Citing from previous review: "upstream has slightly different name: gnome-guitar_cs, but according to the NamingGuidelines it is possible to change it e.g. if the original name uses wrong characters or would be somehow strange ;-) - ubuntu also already named the package without _cs" + 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 (GPLv3+. + 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 gnome-guitar_cs-0.8.1.tar.gz* 5b411154ff9a5445ddaec03bdc787a0067fc3e07c978dfc3560de2667f76f558 gnome-guitar_cs-0.8.1.tar.gz 5b411154ff9a5445ddaec03bdc787a0067fc3e07c978dfc3560de2667f76f558 gnome-guitar_cs-0.8.1.tar.gz.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. 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) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime requirement added. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). + 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 file, and this file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. - The package MUST depend on hicolor-icon-theme due to dependency on /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps directory. Perhaps some runtime dependency picks it up during installation process. Otherwise you MUST add explicit "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme". Actually I believe that it's a generally good idea to list all such dependencies explicitly disregarding of whether underlying dependent packages pull them into installation chain. So I advice you to add "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme". + 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, so here is a summary - please, comment the situation with hicolor-icon-theme (either prove that some underlying package from this package's dependency chain will install it, or explicitly add it as the Requires) and I'll finish the 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