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=661615 --- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-23 15:16:51 EST --- A few minor issues: - license matches the actual package license in bamf-0.2.64/lib/libbamf bamf-tab.c bamf-tab.h bamf-view-private.h are GPLv2+ so I think the overall library should be GPLv2+ - package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738391 ? non -devel packages should require fully versioned base I don't believe this is needed as the base package is a library and should be pulled in by the library. The only reason I could see is there might be issues ig soname isn't bumped for every release + rpmlint output rpmlint bamf.spec bamf-0.2.64-1.fc15.src.rpm bamf-0.2.64-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm bamf-devel-0.2.64-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm bamf-daemon-0.2.64-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm bamf.spec:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} bamf.spec:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} bamf.spec:37: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} bamf.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} bamf.src:35: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} bamf.src:37: W: macro-in-comment %{_datadir} 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora - license matches the actual package license in bamf-0.2.64/lib/libbamf bamf-tab.c bamf-tab.h bamf-view-private.h are GPLv2+ so I think the overall library should be GPLv2+ + latest version packaged + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm ba433497562e4702a7cf93001491981a bamf-0.2.64.tar.gz - package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2738391 + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* + binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr n/a package owns all directories it creates n/a no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + Permissions on files must be set properly + %defattr line + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package runtime + header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static + packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' + libfoo.so must go in -devel + devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: + if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane ? non -devel packages should require fully versioned base I don't believe this is needed as the base package is a library and should be pulled in by the library. The only reason I could see is there might be issues ig soname isn't bumped for every release + pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin n/a Package should have man files -- 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