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=718999 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-05 09:37:33 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint eclipse-packagekit-0.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm eclipse-packagekit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autotools -> auto tools, auto-tools, autopilots eclipse-packagekit.src: E: description-line-too-long C PackageKit integration plugin. It also contains autotools and rpm plugins integration code. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. I can't run it on the binary RPM because I can't build it (see below). [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. Line 21 is > 80 characters. [!] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. I can't build it locally because I'm on 3.6 and it apparently requires 3.7: Processing inclusion from feature org.eclipse.linuxtools.packagekit: Bundle org.eclipse.linuxtools.packagekit.autotools_0.0.1.201107050919 failed to resolve.: Missing required plug-in org.eclipse.core.runtime_3.7.0. Please update the BRs and Rs to reflect the 3.7 requirement. [x] Buildroot definition is not present [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: EPL [x] 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. [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. d8620388acc46c9627c91ae55e257d94 eclipse-pkgkit.git;a=snapshot;h=998d35e1eb4e995c4732e0c20e3725760d8be8ad;sf=tgz a6dbb70c08b033170f805b6d71994e91 /home/overholt/Downloads/eclipse-pkgkit-998d35e.tar.gz These are different (and the filenames are different but that's gitweb playing tricks on us), but the exploded contents give no differences. [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. See above. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [-] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [-] Package uses %global not %define [-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly) [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames -- 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