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=724942 --- Comment #11 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-01 08:41:03 EDT --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable +/- rpmlint is not fully silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/libmodbus-* libmodbus.ppc: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0.2-1 ['3.0.1-1.fc16', '3.0.1-1'] ^^^ should be 3.0.1-1 libmodbus.ppc: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+ libmodbus-debuginfo.ppc: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+ libmodbus-devel.ppc: W: invalid-license LGPLv2.1+ ^^^ Should be simply LGPLv2+ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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. + 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. See note regarding "License" tag above. + 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 sources used to build the package, must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libmodbus-3.0.1.tar.gz* 37288f50e2087d73d8d43d0902fcc095ed4985304c09ec8ee3b6472e138b77d4 libmodbus-3.0.1.tar.gz c45bd1d64a3a8970fbbfa1f6671d3f67bced9ff27b47360724aebc5512b0e0af libmodbus-3.0.1.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: - The package doesn't successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3243189 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3243183 Please, add missing BuildRequires: automake 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. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section (it has an empty %clean section), so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + 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 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Almost finished. Please, a) Add missing BuildRequires: automake b) Ensure that anyone could download exact the same tarball as you're using when building the package. c) Fix "License" field d) Fix topmost %changelog entry to match current Version and Release fields. and tell me your FAS name to grant you packager's privileges. -- 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