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=669146 --- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-23 03:55:33 EDT --- Review: [+] OK [-] NA [X] issue + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License X License field in spec matches X License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream md5sum: - Package needs ExcludeArch - BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package has a correct %clean section. + Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. X Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. X Package owns all the directories it creates. The directories here are not owned by the package: %doc %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/* %{_sharedstatedir}/%{name}/* You'll either have to use %dir %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} or simply %doc %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name} + No rpmlint output. [ankur@ankur noarch]$ rpmlint gnumed-server-14.7-1.fc16.noarch.rpm ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/gnumed-server.spec ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/gnumed-server-14.7-1.fc14.src.rpm gnumed-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gm-restore_database gnumed-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gm-zip+sign_backups gnumed-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gm-move_backups_offsite gnumed-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gm-restore_data /home/ankur/rpmbuild/SPECS/gnumed-server.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://www.gnumed.de/downloads/server/v14/gnumed-server.14.7.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found gnumed-server.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://www.gnumed.de/downloads/server/v14/gnumed-server.14.7.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) == gnumed-server-14.7-1.fc16.noarch.rpm == Provides: config(gnumed-server) = 14.7-1.fc16 gnumed-server = 14.7-1.fc16 Requires: /bin/bash /bin/sh /usr/bin/env bzip2 config(gnumed-server) = 14.7-1.fc16 gnupg2 mailx mx openssl postgresql postgresql-client postgresql-filedump python-psycopg2 rsync SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2935502 + Should build on all supported archs - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Some of the files show a GPL license (not a v2). This needs to be added to the spec. A copy of the v1 license should also be included in the package. 2. Clean and buildroot sections aren't needed anymore. (not a blocker!!) 3. The package is a GUI tool right? In that case a desktop file must be added to the package as described here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files 4. Doesn't the package require Python? I don't see it in the Requires. Please check on this. 5. I haven't been able to check the functioning (yet). 6. Please check the other issues outlined above too (ownership etc.) Thanks, Ankur -- 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