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=688157 --- Comment #1 from Marcela MaÅlÃÅovà <mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-17 05:06:46 EDT --- - rpmlint cpupowerutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on cpupowerutils/cpupowerutils-libs/libcpupowerutils cpupowerutils.src: W: invalid-url Source0: cpupowerutils-325b57765dce1aea97c575d64dee91fcf6ee95c5.tar.gz - package must be named according to Guidelines OK - spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK - package must meet the Packaging Guidelines - package must be licensed with Fedora approved license OK - license field must match actual license - license must be GPLv2 (for example files in lib directory) - text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc OK - sources must match the upstream source OK - package MUST successfully compile and build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2919367 - architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK - build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires ? - handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK - shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK - packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK - package must own all directories that it creates OK - permissions on files must be set properly OK - package must consistently use macros OK - package must contain code, or permissable content OK - large documentation must go in a -doc OK - %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK - header files must be in a -devel package OK - static libraries must be in a -static package OK - library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK - devel package usually require base package ? - packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK - GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK rpm -qp --provides cpupowerutils-009-0.1.p1.fc14.x86_64.rpm cpufreq-utils = 1:009-0.1.p1.fc14 cpufrequtils = 1:009-0.1.p1.fc14 libcpufreq.so.0()(64bit) cpupowerutils = 009-0.1.p1.fc14 cpupowerutils(x86-64) = 009-0.1.p1.fc14 rpm -qp --requires cpupowerutils-009-0.1.p1.fc14.x86_64.rpm /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libcpufreq.so.0()(64bit) libpci.so.3()(64bit) libpci.so.3(LIBPCI_3.0)(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) In archive is directory cpupowerutils-cpupowerutils. Is it intentional? Patch0 should be sent to upstream or have at least bug in our bugzilla. -- 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