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=728407 --- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2011-08-05 13:19:31 EDT --- Here's the review. The package looks almost fine. There are just a couple of minor things to be addressed: - add a short comment above Patch0 that the patch has already been applied to the upstream repository http://xqilla.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/xqilla/xqilla/rev/fcb3a70b99a8 - update the fully versioned dependency to Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} (the guidelines have been changed a few months ago) - add INSTALL='install -p" to "make install" in order to preserve the timestamps of the header files - replace %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.gz with %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* as the spec shouldn't rely on a specific compression format applied to manpages. - since the -doc package doesn't require the base package, add file LICENSE to it. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing - please tell upstream about the shared-lib-calls-exit issue and ask whether they could replace the call of exit() with something less radical, e.g. exceptions $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result/*.rpm xqilla.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) XQuery -> X Query, Query, Equerry xqilla.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) XQuery -> X Query, Query, Equerry xqilla.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libxqilla.so.5.0.4 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 xqilla-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation xqilla-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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. [+] 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 XQilla-2.2.4.tar.gz* a00672133d06772f54f18d0fda304c02 XQilla-2.2.4.tar.gz a00672133d06772f54f18d0fda304c02 XQilla-2.2.4.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: 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. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] 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: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [X] 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, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [X] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [.] SHOULD: Patch files should be prefixed with %{name}- [X] SHOULD: All patches should be commented in the spec file [+] 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