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=666409 Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-23 06:39:47 EST --- Hi Jon, I've put together an informal review for you here. Comments denoted by *** Great project. + OK - N/A ! Problem ? Not evaluated Required ========= [+] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/t4k_common-* t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math, tux-math, Tuxtla t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type, tux-type, Tuxtla t4k_common.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libt4k_common.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math, tux-math, Tuxtla t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type, tux-type, Tuxtla 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. rpmlint ../SRPMS/t4k_common-0.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math, tux-math, Tuxtla t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type, tux-type, Tuxtla 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines *** upstream package contains an underscore, so this is ok [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines *** NOTE: no longer need %clean/cleaning of the buildroot in %install unless building for F12 and below or EPEL [+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [+] License file must be included in %doc [+] The spec file must be written in American English [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible [+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source [+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [+] Proper use of ExcludeArch [+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [-] 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 [!] A package must own all directories that it creates *** line 54: must own %{_datadir}/%{name} - do not need to qualify files or directories under this [+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings [+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line [!] Each package must consistently use macros *** use %{name} macro in Source0 [+] The package must contain code, or permissable content [+] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage [+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [+] Header files must be in a -devel package [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package [+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 Should Items ============ [-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to include it [-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the package spec if available [+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock [+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures [?] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described [+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [?] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [-] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts *** no man pages in upstream package -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers -- 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