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=723053 --- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2011-07-19 08:59:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > > Please be more verbose in %files of both packages. > > I wasn't really sure what you meant with this (but decided to just explicitly > define the two library files anyway): any specific examples? Yes, exactly this. Don't use wildcards if it's not necessary, i.e., there are only a few files to package. The spec file becomes a lot easier to read, since you see right away what is installed by the package. Please be more specific also for %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/curlpp.pc For clarity, I like to add a trailing / for directories: %{_includedir}/curlpp/ %{_includedir}/utilspp/ *** rpmlint output: urlpp.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libcURL -> lib Curl, lib-curl, curlicue curlpp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcURL -> lib Curl, lib-curl, curlicue curlpp.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libcURL -> lib Curl, lib-curl, curlicue curlpp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcURL -> lib Curl, lib-curl, curlicue curlpp-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary curlpp-config 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. These 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. OK 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. OK - License headers exist in some source code files, but they are not identified by licensecheck. This may be due to improper indentation. - COPYING states that code is licensed as MIT Modern Style with sublicense. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK $ md5sum curlpp-0.7.3.tar.gz ../SOURCES/curlpp-0.7.3.tar.gz ccc3d30d4b3b5d2cdbed635898c29485 curlpp-0.7.3.tar.gz ccc3d30d4b3b5d2cdbed635898c29485 ../SOURCES/curlpp-0.7.3.tar.gz 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. NEEDSWORK - Include doc/guide.pdf in -devel. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK 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. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A 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'. NEEDSWORK - This is only necessary if you want to ship for EPEL-5. -- 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