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=674008 --- Comment #64 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-31 15:13:17 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not completely silent: sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ~/Desktop/openrave-* openrave.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libopenrave-core.so.0.4.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ^^^ This should be reported upstream (Rosen, ping!) as it could be a possible defect. Not a blocker anyway. openrave.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/openrave.bash ^^^ That's ok. openrave.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/openrave-0.4.1/AUTHORS ^^^ This should be fixed with dos2unix or sed. Please, take care of this message. openrave.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave openrave-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave-config openrave-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave-createplugin.py ^^^ That's ok for now. Hopefully they will be written someday. openrave-octave.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/octave/packages/openrave-0.4.1/orcreate.mex openrave-octave.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/octave/packages/openrave-0.4.1/orwrite.mex openrave-octave.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/libexec/octave/packages/openrave-0.4.1/orread.mex ^^^ that should be fixed. Just chmod them to 0755 at the end of %install section and rpmbuild will do the rest. openrave-octave.x86_64: W: no-documentation openrave-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ That's ok. openrave-python.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/openravepy/databases/linkstatistics.py openrave-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/openravepy/interfaces/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env openrave-python.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/openravepy/__init__.py 0644L /usr/bin/env ^^^ That should be fixed if possible. I'm not sure about purposes of these scrips so I can't say for sure what to do with them - I guess that you should remove shebang and mark them as 0644. openrave-python.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave.py openrave-python.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openrave-robot.py ^^^ No man-pages for now. It's ok for packaging, although it's not that good for project - adding good old man-pages is always a good idea (Ping again, Rosen). 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 13 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. Well, this package is quite big so I could overlook something, but it does look ok at first glance. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3241903 + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime requirement added. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 The package does not contain *.desktop file. This isn't a blocker but I strongly advice you to convince upstream (Rosen, ping again!) to add it. - The package mustn't own files or directories already owned by other packages. Please, add cmake as a requires to the *-devel sub-package because you installed fines into %{_libdir}/cmake. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, almost finished. Tim, please, fix/comment issues mentioned above and I'll continue. -- 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