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=703367 --- Comment #3 from Petr Sabata <psabata@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-11 11:36:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the > review. > sxiv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) suckless -> suckles, luckless, > suck less > sxiv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US feh -> eh, fee, fen > sxiv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qiv -> qi, iv, riv > sxiv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xlib -> lib, glib, x lib > sxiv-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources > sxiv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) suckless -> suckles, luckless, suck > less > sxiv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US feh -> eh, fee, fen > sxiv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qiv -> qi, iv, riv > sxiv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xlib -> lib, glib, x lib > sxiv.src: W: invalid-url Source0: sxiv-0.8.1.tar.bz2 > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. > > Please read https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Debuginfo for > info on fixing your debuginfo Strange. I'll look into that... > > OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . > OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. . > OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the > Licensing Guidelines . > NOTOK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > Actual license is GPLv2+ Indeed. > > OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in > its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package must be included in %doc. > OK: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists) > OK: The spec file must be written in American English. > OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > ?: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > > You should use github tarballs, they are not stable as far as checksums are > concerned. Indeed. I'll use https://github.com/downloads/muennich/sxiv/sxiv-0.8.1.tar.gz instead my custom snapshot. > > OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > OK: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an > architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in > bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on > that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the > corresponding ExcludeArch line. > OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of > those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. > OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. > OK: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this > fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation > of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a > blocker. > OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a > directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that > directory. > OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's > %files listings. > OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with > executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > OK: Each package must consistently use macros. > OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of > large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to > size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). > OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of > the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly > if it is not present. > OK: Header files must be in a -devel package. > OK: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > OK: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), > then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel > package. > OK: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package > using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed > in the spec if they are built. > OK: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, > and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need > a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. > > Even though this is practically a GUI app, it can't be launched from menu > because it needs files on commandline so I will ignore this req. > > OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. > The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the > files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for > example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the > files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that > you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, > then please present that at package review time. > OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > > Issues: > * debuginfos incorrect, ignored RPM_OPT_FLAGS > * incorrect license > * source from tarball Thanks. I'll post an updated version tomorrow. -- 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