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=691081 --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-11 06:41:57 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint erlang-erlzmq2-* erlang-erlzmq2.src:67: W: macro-in-%changelog %{git_tag} erlang-erlzmq2.src:70: W: macro-in-%changelog %{git_tag} erlang-erlzmq2.src:74: W: macro-in-%changelog %{git_tag} erlang-erlzmq2.src:77: W: macro-in-%changelog %{git_tag} erlang-erlzmq2.src:81: W: macro-in-%changelog %{git_tag} erlang-erlzmq2.src:18: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 18, tab: line 4) ^^ this should be fixed (use real values instead of macros) erlang-erlzmq2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: zeromq-erlzmq2-a2b0693.tar.gz ^^ that's ok, however I advise you to add a description on how to obtain the tarball ( wget --no-check-certificate https://github.com/zeromq/erlzmq2/tarball/a2b0693 ) erlang-erlzmq2.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency erlang-stdlib ^^^ That's ok for now. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. I have the only proposal - please, invoke "rebar compile" with "-v" switch to raise verbosity level. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license (MIT and BSD, see c_src/vector.[ch] sources) + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum zeromq-erlzmq2-a2b0693.tar.gz* d6487a3c02d2ea379a959a92af0c497cdd174ea1ffacceedebd2030e167e1445 zeromq-erlzmq2-a2b0693.tar.gz d6487a3c02d2ea379a959a92af0c497cdd174ea1ffacceedebd2030e167e1445 zeromq-erlzmq2-a2b0693.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. You missed the only one - %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/%{real_name}-%{version}/include . + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No C header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please fix/comment issues mentioned above and I'll continue. -- 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