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=684915 Patrick Monnerat <pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Patrick Monnerat <pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-15 10:02:50 EDT --- rpmlint output: --- php-pecl-igbinary.spec php-pecl-igbinary.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: igbinary-tests.tgz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- php-pecl-igbinary-1.1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-igbinary.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized php-pecl-igbinary.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized php-pecl-igbinary.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcached -> mem cached, mem-cached, mustached php-pecl-igbinary.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US storages -> storage, storage's, stor ages 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. --- php-pecl-igbinary-1.1.1-1.remi.src.rpm php-pecl-igbinary.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized php-pecl-igbinary.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US serializer -> serialize, serializes, serialized php-pecl-igbinary.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcached -> mem cached, mem-cached, mustached php-pecl-igbinary.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US storages -> storage, storage's, stor ages php-pecl-igbinary.src: W: invalid-url Source1: igbinary-tests.tgz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. --- php-pecl-igbinary-devel-1.1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-igbinary-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- php-pecl-igbinary-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 + complies with all the legal guidelines: + License: BSD 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: 4ad53115ed7d1d452cbe50b45dcecdf2 SHA1: cebe34d18dd167a40a712a6826415e3e5395ab27 SHA256: b84158410bde9db42e7a96c4e947da4569519ab4e7e19a5e3d1db698aac94101 + 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 + 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 + -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 X all filenames are valid UTF-8 X 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 + %check is present and all test pass + final provides and requires are sane ? 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 + scriptlets are sane X subpackages other than -devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency + no file dependencies - package contains man pages Comments: _ Although package builds in mock, "BuildRequires: php-pear" is missing according to packaging guidelines. I don't know why it is required, but since the spec file does not match the guidelines, either the former or the later should be adjusted in this regard (I guess you are the guidelines author, right?). _ I have not tried to install it (F14 here: sorry). 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