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=692541 --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-13 06:26:08 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent: work ~/Desktop: rpmlint rep-gtk-* rep-gtk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) librep -> lib rep, lib-rep, libretto rep-gtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librep -> lib rep, lib-rep, libretto rep-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US librep -> lib rep, lib-rep, libretto rep-gtk-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2 or later). + 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 rep-gtk-0.90.5.tar.bz2* c4ce0d5c560f0846461abd623255342c503b19f3c2d2e32377c62d4765dfac1a rep-gtk-0.90.5.tar.bz2 c4ce0d5c560f0846461abd623255342c503b19f3c2d2e32377c62d4765dfac1a rep-gtk-0.90.5.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + 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. You should remove %post and %postun targets entirely - they are useless. + 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. nfortunately I think that there is some lack of agreement between librep and rep-gtk about directory structure. This is the directory layout from librep (only interesting ones listed): /usr/lib64/rep /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1 /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/data /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/i18n /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/io /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/io/db /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/lang /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/util /usr/lib64/rep/0.91.1/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/rep/vm And this the full directory and files layout from rep-gtk (except docs): /usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/gui /usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/gui/gtk-2 /usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/gui/gtk-2/gtk.so You see - librep uses versioned directory structure while rep-gtk is not, thus the directory "/usr/lib64/rep/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu" from rep-gtk package becomes unowned. Btw I really don't see any reason on using versioned directory structure in librep. Technically it's ok (disregard rep-gtk for now) but it doesn't have any sense. + 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. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime requirement is picked up automatically. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + 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. So, please, fix the situation with directories and remove %post and %postun sections 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