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=676791 Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-11 09:05:15 EST --- [~OK] rpmlint must be run on every package. rpmlint Downloads/goocanvas2-* goocanvas2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cairo -> Cairo, cairn, caird goocanvas2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cairo -> Cairo, cairn, caird goocanvas2.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 2, tab: line 15) goocanvas2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cairo -> Cairo, cairn, caird goocanvas2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cairo -> Cairo, cairn, caird 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. [OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [OK] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License is LGPLv2 [OK] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [OK] The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. (sha1sum) sources from the src.rpm: 8f32040accb3b5a96de98c34151750271d30b97c rpmbuild/SOURCES/goocanvas-1.90.2.tar.bz2 sources from upstream: 8f32040accb3b5a96de98c34151750271d30b97c goocanvas-1.90.2.tar.bz2 [OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2832696 [N/A] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. [OK] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [OK] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [N/A] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [OK] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [OK] Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [N/A] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. The documentation is not big enough [~OK] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. I think it would be worth to include the AUTHORS NEWS and TODO as %doc [OK] Header files must be in a -devel package. [N/A] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [OK] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [OK] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. [OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [N/A] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. To test the coexistance of goocanvas and goocanvas2 I have modified the spec to BR on goocanvas and build. scratch build for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2832825 The build.log looks clean. I used rpmls on goocanvas2 and rpm -ql on goocanvas. I do not see potential file conflict [OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. I trust you can fix the %doc and the tab issue detected by rpmlint before importing goocanvas2 into the repository. goocanvas2 is therefore 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