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=668959 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-12 08:00:23 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is NOT silent, and some of its messages should be suppressed: work ~: rpmlint Desktop/jbig2dec-* jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, massless jbig2dec.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi level, bi-level, bile vel jbig2dec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy jbig2dec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, massless jbig2dec.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi level, bi-level, bile vel ^^^ False positives. No need to take care of them. jbig2dec.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.11 ['0.11-1.fc14', '0.11-1'] ^^^ This should be fixed (easyfix). jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, massless jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi level, bi-level, bile vel ^^^ False positives. No need to take care of them. jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: E: useless-provides jbig2dec-devel ^^^ This should be fixed (easyfix). Just drop explicit "Provides: jbig2dec-devel = %{version}-%{release}" jbig2dec-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ Ok for now. jbig2dec-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossy -> loss, glossy, flossy jbig2dec-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, massless jbig2dec-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bilevel -> bi level, bi-level, bile vel ^^^ False positives. No need to take care of them. 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings. work ~: + 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 ALMOST meets the Packaging Guidelines. * You really need to suppress two rpmlint warnings, mentioned by me (see above). * Also I advice you to drop "Requires: %{name}-libs = %{version}-%{release}" line. This sort of dependencies (dependency on libraries) should be picked up by rpmbuild automatically. * Drop empty "%doc" line from the %files section. Otherwise the package looks good. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license. Proper license tag is "GPLv2+ with exceptions". Contents of files, licensed under Public Domain License (sha1.h and sha1.c), under BSD (snprintf.c)m under GPL w/o explicit version (getopt1.c, getopt.c and getopt.h) are relicensed under GPLv2+ during linking stage. + 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 jbig2dec-0.11.tar.gz* 7e2d8330b36f2765da22043d174827bee0f30db8d78c330904f363275c7dd0b9 jbig2dec-0.11.tar.gz 7e2d8330b36f2765da22043d174827bee0f30db8d78c330904f363275c7dd0b9 jbig2dec-0.11.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Koji scratchbuild for F-14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2716806 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 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 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. 0 The package doesn't have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on some systems with old rpm version (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + 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. + 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 MUST require the lib sub-package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 0 At the beginning of %install, the package DOESN'T run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). The same warning as for %clean section (see above). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. OK, please address the issues mentioned 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