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=719402 Mario Blättermann <mariobl@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Mario Blättermann <mariobl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-17 11:15:58 EDT --- Koji scratch build for f15: <http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3205163 $ rpmlint -i -v * OSGi-bundle-ant-task.noarch: I: checking OSGi-bundle-ant-task.noarch: I: checking-url https://opensource.luminis.net/wiki/display/SITE/OSGi+Bundle+Ant+Task (timeout 10 seconds) OSGi-bundle-ant-task.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. OSGi-bundle-ant-task.src: I: checking OSGi-bundle-ant-task.src: I: checking-url https://opensource.luminis.net/wiki/display/SITE/OSGi+Bundle+Ant+Task (timeout 10 seconds) OSGi-bundle-ant-task.src: W: invalid-url Source0: OSGi-bundle-ant-task.tar.gz The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The package includes no documentation. No problem actually, because there are no docs provided by upstream. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. BSD [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [x] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. Please add a license declaration file, which is available from here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php [+] 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. The commands to create the tarball don't work on my system. I've used the following to checkout the appropriate svn revision: https://opensource.luminis.net/svn/BUNDLES/releases/build-plugin-0.2.0/ tar -cvzf OSGi-bundle-ant-task.tar.gz build-plugin-0.2.0/ $ md5sum * 17504d454b4d416fdb85ecf43df9ca3c OSGi-bundle-ant-task.tar.gz 14d31b67b02eb26bfbfc2b3823f49961 OSGi-bundle-ant-task.tar.gz.packaged The checksums don't match. What could be the problem here? [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - Succesful Koji build available. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache must be updated. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) 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, ... [.] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled. [.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information, the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] 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), ... [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream... [+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway) [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. I assume the packager has tested it. Don't know how to test it on my system. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ... [.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. -- 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