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=664963 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2011-01-19 08:49:44 EST --- The package looks fine. Especially, the Obsoletes/Provides fields are set properly. As I couldn't find any blockers, we can directly finish here. :) Adding the Doxygen docs would be a helpful improvement, and if upstream could provide manpages for the utils, this would also be appreciated of course. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-i386/result/*.rpm libmcs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userland -> user land, user-land, Sutherland libmcs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> utile, utilizes, utilize libmcs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userland -> user land, user-land, Sutherland libmcs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> utile, utilizes, utilize libmcs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mcs -> ms, cs, mics libmcs.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} libmcs.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} libmcs.src:84: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} libmcs.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %config libmcs.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir} libmcs-devel.i686: W: no-documentation libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-documentation libmcs-utils.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/mcs-walk-config libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-query-backends libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-setconfval libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-info libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-getconfval libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-walk-config 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings. All above warnings can be ignored: - spellling errors are false positive - warnings about macros in comments are expected and harmless - devel-file-in-non-devel-package is false positive - no manpages present in source archive --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. - BSD (3-clause variant) [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: When renaming an existing package, the Provides field must be properly set: Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR - Provides properly set for all (sub)packages [+] MUST: When renaming an existing package, the Obsoletes field must be properly set: Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR - Obsoletes properly set for all (sub)packages [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum libmcs-0.7.2.tbz2* 9fc91a8e860a0ab99316824aebb1d40a libmcs-0.7.2.tbz2 9fc91a8e860a0ab99316824aebb1d40a libmcs-0.7.2.tbz2.1 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. koji scratch build (f15): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2731019 [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications ... [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ... [X] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. - it would be nice if upstream could add manpages for the utilities ---------------- Package APPROVED ---------------- -- 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