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=710452 --- Comment #3 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-03 17:10:29 EDT --- Hi Mukund, thanks for submitting this package and starting as a Fedora contributor! Jussi, in the words of the great Bob Geldof: "I don't mind at all." :-) Anyway, here's the review probably overlapping a bit with Jussi's comments: Items marked "GOOD" or "PASS" fulfil the guidelines or they don't apply to this package. Read them anyway as they may still contain valuable hints. Items marked "CHECK" either aren't covered by the guidelines or unclear, but you should check and fix them anyway in my opinion. Items marked "BAD" violate the guidelines in some point and need to be fixed. BAD: rpmlint indicates errors: unzix.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency zlib unzix.x86_64: W: empty-%pre unzix.x86_64: W: empty-%post unzix.x86_64: W: empty-%preun unzix.x86_64: W: empty-%postun 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. --> remove "Requires: zlib", empty scriptlets GOOD: package named according to guidelines GOOD: spec file named like package BAD: The license as in LICENSE is acceptable for Fedora, but unzix.c is licensed as "Copyright (C) 2009 Mukund Sivaraman. All rights reserved." without a mention of the BSD license. I know you're a good guy and won't use this against someone, but this needs to be fixed ;-). For the remainder of the review I'm assuming that the stated new BSD license holds. GOOD: spec file license matches package license GOOD: license text file included as %doc CHECK: Spec file must be written in American English: In the description it's probably rather "... extracting files from archives in the WinZix format." (I'd leave out "new" as this will change over time) and the changelog entry should rather be "Initial rpm package" or "... packaging" IMO. Language lawyering works best late in the evening ;-). GOOD: spec file is legible GOOD: The sources used to build the package match the tarball upstream. NB, just for completeness sake and not because I think you would do that ;-): As the upstream maintainer of this package, please don't "recycle" tarball versions, if the tarball has new contents, the version should be bumped. GOOD: the package successfully compiles and builds into a package on F-15/x86_64 GOOD: all build requirements listed in spec file PASS: no locale specific files (yet ;-), read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files when it comes to that) PASS: no shared libraries included GOOD: no copies of system libraries included PASS: package not relocatable PASS: package doesn't explicitly create directories GOOD: doesn't list packages files more than once GOOD: File permissions are set properly. Note that you technically don't need the %defattr statement in the %files section for Fedora (i.e. rpm > 4.4), but it probably is convenient for people doing rebuilds on older systems. GOOD: consistently uses macros GOOD: package contains code and permissible content PASS: no large documentation files GOOD: package doesn't depend on %doc files during runtime PASS: no header files packaged PASS: no static libraries packaged PASS: no libraries, with or without version suffix PASS: no devel package PASS: no libtool archives (*.la) created PASS: doesn't contain GUI applications GOOD: doesn't own files or directories owned by other packages GOOD: all file names are valid UTF-8 GOOD: contains man page for the included unzix binary Please fix the (few) found issues, I'm confident we can get this done in the next round. -- 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