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=725228 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2011-07-25 03:59:38 EDT --- I had a deeper look at the package and it looks almost fine. There are yet a few small things to be fixed: - The URL given in Source0 is invalid. Change it to http://downloads.sourceforge.net/edyuk/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz - Fix the file permissions that rpmlint complains about (see below) * add chmod 644 README.txt to %prep * add chmod 755 %{buildroot}%{_libdir} to %install - Add qt-devel to the devel package (see comment #2). - Drop Requires: pkgconfig as there's no .pc file in -devel. - Replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot} to use macros consistently. - If you don't plan to build the package for EPEL < 6 too, you can drop rm -rf %{buildroot} from install. Otherwise, add a BuildRoot field and a %clean section. These are still required for EPEL 4 and 5. - You can drop option -p from "cp" as option -a already includes -p implicitly. - rpmlint doesn't like non-devel packages requiring a devel package. If the designer subpackage is considered a devel package as well, this is probably OK. $ rpmlint *.rpm qcodeedit.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/qcodeedit/2.2.3/qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found qcodeedit.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libqcodeedit.so.1.0.0 0775L qcodeedit.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/qcodeedit-2.2.3/README.txt qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build qcodeedit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/qcodeedit-2.2.3/lib/.build qcodeedit-designer.x86_64: E: devel-dependency qt-devel qcodeedit-designer.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. The hidden files warnings can be ignored. --------------------------------- 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 according to source headers [+] 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 qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz* e2453d8e97c2592a870bbddd51876ad0 qcodeedit-2.2.3.tar.gz e2453d8e97c2592a870bbddd51876ad0 qcodeedit-2.2.3.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 ... [+] 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: 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. [X] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. - see rpmlint output [X] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. - replace $RPM_BUILD_ROOT with %{buildroot} [+] 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 .so.* files, then .so files (without 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, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] 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: [X] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}. [X] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [X] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' - no .pc file present => drop Requires: pkgconfig [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+] 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