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=707613 --- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-30 00:55:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > Hi Ankur! > > Here it goes the review: +/!/- mean ok/bad/does not apply > > ! MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build > produces. The output should be posted in the review. > > rpmlint in not silent: > > [mario@shadow rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SRPMS/dcm4che-test-2.6-1.fc15.src.rpm > RPMS/noarch/dcm4che-test-2.6-1.fc15.noarch.rpm > RPMS/noarch/dcm4che-test-javadoc-2.6-1.fc15.noarch.rpm > dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-license GPLv2.0 > dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 > dcm4che-test.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > dcm4che-test.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2.0 > dcm4che-test.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 > dcm4che-test.noarch: W: no-documentation > dcm4che-test.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/dcm4che-test > dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java > docs, Java-docs, Avocados > dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv2.0 > dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1 > dcm4che-test-javadoc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/share/javadoc/dcm4che-test/apidocs/javadoc.sh > > > Please consider: > - use recognized license names (rpmlint -i will give you the names) Corrected. > - mark /etc/maven/fragments/dcm4che-test as a conf-file, if you feel it correct I checked up another java package spec. maven fragments are not marked as conf files it looks like. > > ! MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . > > Why do you not call the package dcm4che2-test instead of dcm4che-test? the "2" in "dcm4che2" stands for versioning. It's not a lot of use including it in the name. dcm4che2-2.... is redundant IMO? > > Moreover, as it is a svn checkout, I think it should be named accordingly. > However I understand that this is tagged as a stable release, so it's your > decision. > Corrected. > + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. > + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > + MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines . > > ! MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > > Please use a name recognized by rpmlint > Corrected. > - MUST: 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. > + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. > + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > > ! MUST: 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. > > They differs: > > [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ svn co > https://dcm4che.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/dcm4che/dcm4che2-test/tags/dcm4che2-test-2.6 > [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ tar -cvzf dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz dcm4che2-test-2.6/ > [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ md5sum dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > 9023b1143b1089fbaaedb752dfb8139a dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > > [mario@shadow dcm4che2]$ md5sum > /home/mario/rpmbuild/SOURCES/dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > 07e709c479df9301324053e2d605309f > /home/mario/rpmbuild/SOURCES/dcm4che2-test-2.6.tar.gz > I've done a fresh svn export and made the tar. This shouldn't happen now. > > + MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > > The package successfully builds in koji: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3098038 > > - MUST: 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. > + MUST: 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. > - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > - MUST: 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. > + MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. > - MUST: 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. > + MUST: 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. > + MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's > %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) > + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. > + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. > + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > + MUST: 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). > + MUST: 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. > - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > - MUST: 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. > - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} > - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be > removed in the spec if they are built. > - MUST: 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. > + MUST: 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. > + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > + MUST: The package follows the Java Packaging guidelines (at least as far as I > got them :) ) > > Please fix all the reported issues and I'll approve the package. > > Best, > > Mario I think I've fixed them all :) New spec, srpm: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che-test/dcm4che-test.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/dcm4che-test/dcm4che-test-2.6-0.1.fc15.20110530svn15516.src.rpm Thanks!! Ankur -- 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