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=710906 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2011-08-16 03:57:11 EDT --- rpmlint output: octave-signal.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %40unreal octave-signal.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge octave-signal.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/signal-1.0.11/packinfo/.autoload octave-signal.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/signal-1.0.11/packinfo/.autoload octave-signal.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun cp 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. These are OK. ** Here you have the correct dependency to octave(api). Good. I wouldn't mind a comment about Patch0, e.g. "Fix the address of FSF.", though. ** You are missing the -v flag from mkoctfile in the Makefile to get the build commands to display. Fix this in the nostrip patch. ** Change the summary to "Signal processing tools for Octave" ^^^^^ ** Why are you using %octave_cmd pkg build '-verbose' '-nodeps' %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{_arch} %{_builddir}/%{buildsubdir} instead of %octave_pkg_build ? ** 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. NEEDSWORK - Actual license is GPLv3+, not GPLv2+. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK $ md5sum signal-1.0.11.tar.gz ../SOURCES/signal-1.0.11.tar.gz 808a4b5d3c7953e1ac66ef870693cfa5 signal-1.0.11.tar.gz 808a4b5d3c7953e1ac66ef870693cfa5 ../SOURCES/signal-1.0.11.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. NEEDSWORK - Add "-v" to mkoctfile command in Makefile to see flags. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A 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. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A 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. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned, architecture dependent dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A 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 -- 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