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=671884 --- Comment #6 from Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-19 07:14:23 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is not silent, some messages can be ignored: - erlang-cluster_info.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: https://download.github.com/hibari-cluster-info-d077716.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found - erlang-cluster_info.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://download.github.com/hibari-cluster-info-d077716.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found Please verify and correct the download URLs, but this maybe related to the Github problems I was seeing in the other review earlier. - erlang-cluster_info.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib That is fine. - erlang-cluster_info.x86_64: E: no-binary Well, there just is none. - erlang-cluster_info.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There actually is binary data in the beam files. + 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 (ASL 2.0). + 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. # sha256sum ../SOURCES/hibari-cluster-info-d077716.tar.gz 519358519387c8bd37928ead542940ff9af22e9135f85dee96dd19f6d7635ada ../SOURCES/hibari-cluster-info-d077716.tar.gz The mentioned download URL seems to not exist, I could not find a hint on hibari's github page either. The tag tarball download is disfunctional atm (Github seems to have a problem). + 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. 0 No shared library files. + 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. You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as a variable, but macros for everything else. Consider changing this, but since this is what rpmdev-newspec creates by default I consider this to be acceptable. + 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. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-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. Looks good, but the source URL issue must be fixed before approving. You can also just name the tarball and provide git instructions on how to create the tarball, or wget the github URL as you did for erlang-js. Take the macro consistency into consideration, but the current state is acceptable to me if you want to keep it as it is. -- 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