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=672440 --- Comment #4 from Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-02 16:53:30 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable (+) rpmlint is not silent, some messages can be ignored: - No documentation for sub-packages ok + 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (BSD). (-) The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. - issue is known and packager has contacted upstream about a fix. A license file will be included in the next release, therefore acceptable. Source code files carry the license tag, so license can be verified. + 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. # sha256sum ../SOURCES/flann-1.6.7-src.zip c96feb000e7ce430bec4a03fb53ce0fb82c0bda9c475d93691916101a0c6c137 ../SOURCES/flann-1.6.7-src.zip # sha256sum ~/Downloads/flann-1.6.7-src.zip c96feb000e7ce430bec4a03fb53ce0fb82c0bda9c475d93691916101a0c6c137 /home/tim/Downloads/flann-1.6.7-src.zip + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + Main package calls ldconfig in %post/%postun + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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 uses $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as variable, and everything else as macro. Since this is what rpmdev-newspec provides by default, I figure this is acceptable. Consider changing for consistency, but if you don't it is not a blocker (I'm using that format in many packages myself). + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in -devel package + Static libraries are in -static package + pkg-config files are in -devel package + .so (no suffix) are in -devel package + -devel package requires base package, -static package requires -devel package + 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. - At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Package looks good, things that MUST be changed: - Add %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Add rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at beginning of %install section - Add license file in a future release (current state acceptable transiently and does not stop the package from being accepted) -- 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