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=705043 --- Comment #13 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2011-07-18 08:57:23 EDT --- I'm not sure whether paco-gui is the best name for the GUI package; I would just name it gpaco. You can do this by specifying %package -n gpaco instead of %package gui and the thing for %files as well. ** rpmlint output: paco.src:23: W: configure-without-libdir-spec paco.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libpaco-log.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 paco.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocap paco-gui.x86_64: W: no-documentation paco-gui.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gpaco 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. The configure-without-libdir-spec warning is probably caused by the ./configure in the %description, and is as such erroneus. Since this is a C++ program, there's no need to call exit, as one can throw exceptions instead. However, this change would need to be done by upstream. Other warnings are OK. ** MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - Macro styles mixed. - Please remove the unnecessary empty lines in -gui, e.g., the empty line at the start of the %description ends up in the result rpm as well. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSWORK - As stated by Martin above in comment #5, the license is somewhat badly defined. - gpaco/about.cc defines a GPLv2+ license, so do lib/paco/getopt.h and lib/paco/getopt.cc. - License tag should reflect the license of the result, which is anyway in this case GPL+ + GPLv2+ = GPLv2+. - Please change License tag to GPLv2+ and ask upstream to add proper license headers in every source code file. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK $ md5sum paco-2.0.9.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/paco-2.0.9.tar.bz2 d2debbea1b11156470f7fd849bb93c80 paco-2.0.9.tar.bz2 d2debbea1b11156470f7fd849bb93c80 ../SOURCES/paco-2.0.9.tar.bz2 MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK EPEL: Clean section exists. OK EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A ** This package is in pretty good shape, so you'll just need to do another submission and a couple of informal reviews as instructed in comment #12. -- 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