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=680488 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-13 09:30:47 EDT --- [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -i *.rpm erlang-basho_stats.spec erlang-basho_stats.i686: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags. (False positive) erlang-basho_stats.i686: E: no-binary The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries. They are arch independent by erlang vm searches in %{libdir} #652585 erlang-basho_stats.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. erlang-basho_stats.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. erlang-basho_stats.src: W: invalid-url Source0: basho-basho_stats-basho_stats-1.0.1-0-gfbb957b.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. erlang-basho_stats.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: basho-basho_stats-basho_stats-1.0.1-0-gfbb957b.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. [+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Naming-Yes Version-release - Matches License - OK, Apache software license v2.0 No prebuilt external bits - OK, there is one(rebar) in the sources but is not used or distributed Spec legibity - OK Package template - OK Arch support - OK Libexecdir - OK rpmlint - yes changelogs - OK Source url tag - OK, not provided as the current source url might change (#652585) Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK %clean is ignored - present anyway. OK Build Requires list - OK Summary and description - OK API documentation - OK, none provided. [+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . Licensed with Apache software license version 2. All source files (.erl) have license headers. [+]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. No license text included with the package. [+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. md5sum basho-basho_stats-basho_stats-1.0.1-0-gfbb957b.tar.gz 7e819c11daf275d07b5d3413619fa480 basho-basho_stats-basho_stats-1.0.1-0-gfbb957b.tar.gz md5sum erlang-basho_stats-1.0.1-1.fc15.src/basho-basho_stats-basho_stats-1.0.1-0-gfbb957b.tar.gz 7e819c11daf275d07b5d3413619fa480 erlang-basho_stats-1.0.1-1.fc15.src/basho-basho_stats-basho_stats-1.0.1-0-gfbb957b.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on x86_64 and i686 [+]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. None listed. [+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro No locale files. [NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. Checked with rpmquery --list [NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. [+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. Checked with rpmquery --whatprovdes [+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. The beam files are not marked as executable. [+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. [+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+]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. [NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA]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. [NA]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release} [NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA]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 [+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Checked with rpmquery --list [+]MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Should items [-]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Installs fine. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. 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