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=684429 Randall "Randy" Berry <randyn3lrx@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #3 from Randall "Randy" Berry <randyn3lrx@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-12 11:21:32 EST --- ================================ Key: [P] Pass [F] Fail See [n] [-] Not applicable [?] Questions (see comments) ================================ [F] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. linux-wbfs-manager.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libwbfs -> libbers, libidos, Libyans linux-wbfs-manager.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US caristat -> aristate, cristate, Carissa linux-wbfs-manager.i686: W: no-documentation linux-wbfs-manager.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wbfs_gtk linux-wbfs-manager.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libwbfs -> libbers, libidos, Libyans linux-wbfs-manager.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US caristat -> aristate, cristate, Carissa linux-wbfs-manager.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://linux- wbfs-manager.googlecode.com/files/linux-wbfs-manager-0.1.12.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found linux-wbfs-manager-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package linux-wbfs-manager.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://linux- wbfs-manager.googlecode.com/files/linux-wbfs-manager-0.1.12.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Spelling warnings can be ignored. HTTP error is a false positive links direct to source tarball. Error: empty-debuginfo-package must be addressed. The README file included in the source should be included in the package. [?] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. This package installs wbfs_gtk would it be possible to simplify the name to "wbfs-manager"? This more reflects the actual application it installs. The "linux" in the package name is a bit redundant in my opinion. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines prohibits the use of an underscore in package names so (with few exceptions referenced in the document) so that blocks out naming the package "wbfs_gtk". [?] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. This goes with the question of the naming of the package above. [?] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Naming in question discussed above. [P] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. GPLv2 [P] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [-] MUST: 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. Licensing information gathered from source headers and project page. [P] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [P] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [P] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. b5379f2dcdf21699f0b3012c14fbf1a8 linux-wbfs-manager-0.1.12.tar.gz b5379f2dcdf21699f0b3012c14fbf1a8 linux-wbfs-manager-0.1.12.tar.gz(2) [P] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [-] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [P] MUST: 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. [-] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. [-] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or sub package) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [-] MUST: 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. [-] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [P] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [P] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [?] MUST: The %clean section is not required for F-13 and above. The spec includes this line but it may be removed if there are no plans to build for EPEL [P] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [P] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc sub package. [-] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [-] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [-] MUST: 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. [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [F] MUST: 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. This package contains a GUI therefore it should have a desktop file. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files [P] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [?] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). (For EPEL Only) The spec includes this line but it may be removed if there are no plans to build for EPEL [P] MUST: All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [P] Should build in mock. [P] Should build on all supported archs [-] Should function as described. [-] Should have sane scriptlets. [-] Should have sub packages require base package with fully versioned depend. [P] Should have dist tag [P] Should package latest version [P] Check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Items marked with a question mark are open for discussion. -- 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