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=683463 Mark Chappell <tremble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tremble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Alias| |trafficserver --- Comment #32 from Mark Chappell <tremble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-30 14:32:33 EDT --- - = N/A / = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [/] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [/] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [/] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Language specific items [/] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3169610 [!] Rpmlint output: (snipping the things to ignore) $ rpmlint *.rpm trafficserver.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /etc/trafficserver/body_factory/default/.body_factory_info trafficserver.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/trafficserver trafficserver.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/trafficserver trafficserver-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging trafficserver-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apache -> Apache, apace [/] Package is not relocatable. [!] Buildroot is correct ( Not needed if >= EL6 and >= F13 ) [/] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: ASL 2.0 [!] 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 is included in %doc. [!] With any Subpackage installed the license must also be installed (this may belong to another subpackage) [/] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [/] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ md5sum trafficserver-3.0.0.tar.bz2 SOURCES/trafficserver-3.0.0.tar.bz2 343661b10a0d8425180438ae43af7b4d trafficserver-3.0.0.tar.bz2 343661b10a0d8425180438ae43af7b4d SOURCES/trafficserver-3.0.0.tar.bz2 [/] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [/] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [/] The spec file handles locales properly. [/] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [/] Package must own all directories that it creates. [/] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [/] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [/] Permissions on files are set properly. [/] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -fR $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. ( Not needed if >= EL6 and >= F13 ) [/] Package consistently uses macros. [/] Package contains code, or permissible content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [/] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [/] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [!] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [/] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [/] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [!] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [/] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [/] Latest version is packaged. [/] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [/] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested through koji [/] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: fedora-rawhide [-] Package functions as described. [/] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the tests pass === COMMENTS === * Buildroot: (You're building for EPEL 5) Should be %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) * You should be including the LICENSE file. * Static Libraries You appear to be shipping static libraries in your devel subpackage. static libraries are frowned upon unless you have a very good reason, and if you need them they should be in a separate -static subpackage * Libtool Archives present Please don't include the .la files, just delete them. * Hidden files... Does this need to be there ? trafficserver.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /etc/trafficserver/body_factory/default/.body_factory_info * Spelling mistakes trafficserver-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging trafficserver-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US apache -> Apache, apace * No logrotate config - please include one trafficserver.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/trafficserver * It's not always considered advisable to start the service by default once the package has been installed trafficserver.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/trafficserver -- 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