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=666409 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- --- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2011-07-18 12:58:32 EDT --- Here's the formal review. Sorry for the delay, I've been pretty busy lately. The package looks allmost fine. Here are a few things that need some attention: - The .pc file is packaged twice. Drop it from the base package. - As the files generated by doxygen contain devel docs, move them to the devel package. - I recommend to set the proper file permissions in %install and use %defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files - drop doxygen/html/installdox as it's not required - Please use the original CamelCase spelling from upstream in the %description: TuxMath, TuxType, Tux4Kids $ rpmlint *.rpm t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math, tux-math, bathmat t4k_common.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type, tux-type, Teletype t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math, tux-math, bathmat t4k_common.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type, tux-type, Teletype t4k_common.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libt4k_common.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 t4k_common.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/t4k_common.pc t4k_common.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/t4k_common-0.0.3/html/installdox /usr/bin/perl t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxmath -> tux math, tux-math, bathmat t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tuxtype -> tux type, tux-type, Teletype t4k_common-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. --------------------------------- 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. - GPLv3+ [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] 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. $ md5sum t4k_common-0.0.3.tar.gz* 28ad0818aa79d701fd33019e756340f8 t4k_common-0.0.3.tar.gz 28ad0818aa79d701fd33019e756340f8 t4k_common-0.0.3.tar.gz.1 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied. [.] 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. [X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. - the .pc file is packaged twice (base and devel package) [+] 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: .so files with a suffix must go in a -devel package. [+] 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: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. EPEL <= 5 only: [+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream [+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] 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 consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [.] 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