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=692543 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-15 05:58:02 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is NOT silent work ~: rpmlint Desktop/sawfish-* sawfish.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/sawfish/1.8.0/lisp/sawfish/cfg/main.jl 0644L /bin/sh ^^^ Please, mark it as 0755 instead of 0644. sawfish.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/sawfish-config ^^^ I suspect that this should be omitted however I'm not sure. Could you please clarify this? sawfish-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. work ~: + 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 MUST match the actual license (GPLv2+ and Artistic 2.0). Please also add note in comments that GPLv2+ is for sawfish itself while Artistic 2.0 is just for sounds. + 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 sawfish-1.8.0.tar.bz2* 5ce8f024511f3805398e89a884f317cd2131a7d995d1c7d5899ff112ab0ce1ce sawfish-1.8.0.tar.bz2 5ce8f024511f3805398e89a884f317cd2131a7d995d1c7d5899ff112ab0ce1ce sawfish-1.8.0.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. + The spec file handles locales properly (by using the %find_lang macro). 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 owns all directories that it creates. + 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 header files. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime requirement added. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - The package MUST NOT contain any .la libtool archives. - The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and this file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. - The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Unfortunately there are some directories owned by other packages w/o proper runtime dependency. Namely: - /usr/share/gnome/wm-properties/ owned by control-center-filesystem - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps -> hicolor-icon-theme - /usr/share/kde4/apps/ksmserver/windowmanagers/ - this one is a bit problematic. Actually, this directory should be owned by kde-filesystem but instead it's owned by kdebase-runtime (with really large dependency chain). We have special policy for the these cases: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function I advise you to add dependency on kde-filesystem (which is really tiny and doesn't require any other additional packages) and explicitly claim ownership on /usr/share/kde4/apps/ksmserver/ and /usr/share/kde4/apps/ksmserver/windowmanagers/. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. -- 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