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=706421 --- Comment #3 from Petr Sabata <psabata@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-20 11:01:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in > the review. > > wmname.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname -> host name, > host-name, hostage > wmname.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reparenting -> re > parenting, re-parenting, parenting > wmname.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname -> host name, > host-name, hostage > wmname.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reparenting -> re > parenting, re-parenting, parenting > wmname.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wmname > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. > > Would be nice to have a man page I guess. Not a requirement though. I might write one in the future. The tools is fairly easy to use even without it, though. > > 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 . > OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > 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. > -: 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. > OK: 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. > OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > 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. > -: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > -: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files > (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call > ldconfig in %post and %postun. > OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. > -: 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. > -: 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. > -: Header files must be in a -devel package. > -: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > -: 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. > -: 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. > -: 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. > 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. > > Package is simple and good. It would be nice to have manual for the binary and > comments on the patch though. It might be easier for beginning packager to > understand and whatnot (also state reason why this won't be upstreamed - as I > am sure it won't). > I believe the patch is quite straightforward, not more difficult than install sections in some other packages. Indeed, this won't go upstream, ever -- it's a Fedora specific tweak. > Comment on that patch is not blocking this review though: APPROVED. Thank you. -- 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