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=655582 Patrick Monnerat <pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Patrick Monnerat <pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-11 07:06:29 EST --- rpmlint output: *** mod_cluster.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. *** mod_cluster-1.1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm mod_cluster.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpd -> HTTP mod_cluster.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jk -> j, k, ja mod_cluster.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lifecycle -> life cycle, life-cycle, lifestyle mod_cluster.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://jboss.org/mod_cluster HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. *** mod_cluster-1.1.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm mod_cluster.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jk -> j, k, ja mod_cluster.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lifecycle -> life cycle, life-cycle, lifestyle mod_cluster.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://jboss.org/mod_cluster HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. *** mod_cluster-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm mod_cluster-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://jboss.org/mod_cluster HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. +=OK, -=Not OK, X=Not applicable, ?=Not verifiable MUST Items: + rpmlint output OK (see above) + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines + spec file name matches base package name - dist tag is present and OK + complies with all the legal guidelines: + License: xyz valid, matches actual license + No known patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + COPYING packaged as %doc + spec file is legible and written in american english + source matches upstream: MD5: 3d4fec37ecfd1e5ec33cd147525cfe5e SHA1: 2e42674ac8a5e43fba1b78a04b0087d9772e3afc SHA256: 368a1db30abd0d7c4910e677f7eed4a5c0b1ca2c661cfb76ec6dee820b6c0058 + latest version is being packaged + build root is correct + builds on at least one primary architecture X known non-working architectures are listed in ExcludeArch (BZ #) + no missing BuildRequires (builds in mock) X complies with translation/locale guidelines X ldconfig calls in %post and %postun for packages containing shared libraries + no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths + no duplicated system libraries + package not relocatable + owns the directories and files it creates + doesn't own and directory it shouldn't + no duplicate files in %files + permissions correct, defattr used correctly + macros used consistently + no non-code content X large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage + no %doc files required at runtime X header files are in a -devel subpackage X static libraries are in a -static subpackage X suffixed library files have a matching .so file in the -devel subpackage X pkgconfig files are in a -devel subpackage X -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" + no .la files X .desktop file present X desktop-file-install is used in %install and the .desktop file passes validation + all filenames are valid UTF-8 + complies with the FHS - proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, BuildRequires, Summary, Description + no macros in Summary and Description + no non-UTF-8 characters - all relevant documentation included as %doc + compiler flags are appropriate (RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used) + %clean is present + no bundled software + debuginfo package is valid + no rpaths + complies to %config guidelines X complies with init script guidelines - no timestamp-clobbering file commands - _smp_mflags used X complies to web application guideline X %check is present and all test pass + final provides and requires are sane X no conflicts (installs properly) SHOULD Items: + license already included upstream X translations for description and summary are provided by upstream + package builds in mock ? submitter reports having successfully tested the package functionality X scriptlets are sane X subpackages other than -devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency + no file dependencies X package contains man pages Comments: _ Use %global instead of %define _ Release: 1%{dist} should be 1%{?dist} _ You must add your name before the e-mail address in the changelog records: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs _ Since there is a docs directory in the source, there is probably something to package as %doc. It seems to be a docbook, thus some processing is needed to generate ready-to-read files for the doc package (i.e.: html). _ Use "cp -a" to preserve files timestamp. _ Use "make %{?_smp_mflags}" or explain why you don't. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make About the printf format warnings problem: in any case you should report it upstream. In the meantime, and since the review policy does not explicitly forbid a reviewer to do so, I can try to produce such a patch for you. Your opinion ? -- 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