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=711764 --- Comment #7 from Haïkel Guémar <karlthered@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-24 01:57:00 EDT --- os-source_validator (python package) MUST: rpmlint must be run on src.rpm and rpm. KO $rpmlint -iv osc-source_validator-0.1-2.fc15.src.rpm osc-source_validator.src: I: checking osc-source_validator.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) validator -> invalidator, validation, validate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. osc-source_validator.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C osc source validator Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. osc-source_validator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. osc-source_validator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkin -> chicken, checking, check in The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. osc-source_validator.src: I: checking-url http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_Tools#OSC_source_validator (timeout 10 seconds) osc-source_validator.src:20: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/osc/source_validators A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. osc-source_validator.src:21: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/osc/source_validators A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. osc-source_validator.src:26: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/osc A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}. osc-source_validator.src:30: W: macro-in-%changelog %{SOURCE1} Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in possibly "rewriting history" on subsequent package revisions and generally odd entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in %changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'. osc-source_validator.src: W: no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty. osc-source_validator.src: W: invalid-url Source0: osc-source_validator-0.1.tar.bz2 The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 7 warnings. $ rpmlint -iv osc-source_validator-0.1-2.fc15.noarch.rpm osc-source_validator.noarch: I: checking osc-source_validator.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) validator -> invalidator, validation, validate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. osc-source_validator.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C osc source validator Summary doesn't begin with a capital letter. osc-source_validator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. osc-source_validator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkin -> chicken, checking, check in The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. osc-source_validator.noarch: I: checking-url http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_Tools#OSC_source_validator (timeout 10 seconds) osc-source_validator.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. ==> you should fix the summary issue ==> since there's no upstream tarball, you should add a comment explaining how did you generate the provided tarball ==> missing requires: osc (obvious), other requirements were correctly detected by rpm ==> missing %build section MUST: package named accordingly to package naming guidelines. OK osc is mostly a command-line tool and does not provide a module usable by third-party. MUST: spec file name match %{name}. OK MUST: package meets packaging guidelines. MUST: package must be licensed under a fedora-compliant license. OK (GPLv2+) MUST: license field in package spec match actual license. OK MUST: spec is in legible american english. OK MUST sources provided match upstream's. KO no upstream tarball, no explanation on how did you get the sources MUST: package successfully compiles on at least one primary architecture (all of them). OK MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BR (mock compliant). OK MUST: package must own all directories it creates. OK MUST: package does not list a file more than once in %files section. OK MUST: permissions are properly set. OK MUST: package consistenly use macros. OK MUST: package contains permissable content. OK MUST: package does not own directories owned by other packages. OK MUST: all filenames in package are valid UTF-8 (fixed by the reviewee in current spec). OK SHOULD: mock builds were done for fedora 14/15/devel on all primary architectures (x86/x86_64) OK SHOULD: the module provided works) OK SHOULD: man pages are provided (warnings about them are here irrelevant). Remarks: description isn't very clear, you should properly explain that this is a source validation plugin to OSC (OpenSuse build Service Command-line) -- 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