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=672395 --- Comment #6 from Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-17 19:41:12 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is not silent, some messages can be ignored: eigen3.src: E: no-description-tag eigen3.src:49: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} eigen3.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %check eigen3.src:64: W: macro-in-comment %{_target_platform} eigen3.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: eigen3-fixdso.patch eigen3-devel.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/include/eigen3/Eigen/src/Sparse/SparseAssign.h - The description tag should be set even though the main package is not installable. It can just be a copy of the -devel package - The macro warnings can be silenced by removing the % - The patch should be removed if not used - The zero size error should be discussed with upstream. It seems it is included in the core headers, but it does not appear to be auto-generated. + 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 LGPLv3+). - The website lists the given licenses, while the LICENSE.* files in the package mention GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+. + 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. package# sha256sum ../SOURCES/3.0.0.tar.bz2 e60efc5b18331b2e6c23ac5a8180a13b987f0aeb6fc6dca316ae338fa0513931 ../SOURCES/3.0.0.tar.bz2 downloaded # sha256sum ~/Downloads/eigen-eigen-65ee2328342f.tar.bz2 e60efc5b18331b2e6c23ac5a8180a13b987f0aeb6fc6dca316ae338fa0513931 /home/tim/Downloads/eigen-eigen-65ee2328342f.tar.bz2 I strongly recommend renaming the source file to contain the project name! + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - No problems on F-14 - On F-15 I needed to add "#include <cstddef>" to Eigen/src/StlSupport/details.h to define ptrdiff_t. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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. - You use both, $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{...} style macros. Since rpmdev-newspec creates spec files this way by default I deem this is acceptable, but you might consider deciding for one consistent style. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header-files are -devel subpackage 0 No static libraries. + pkg-config files are in -devel subpackage - If you intent to build the package for EPEL 5 the -devel package must depend on pkg-config 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). + 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. The package looks good. For this review to be approved please - consider fixing or give reasons for not fixing the rpmlint warnings - rename the source file to contain the package base name - Add the required patch to get it to build on F-15, recheck #691133. -- 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