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=226505 Ondrej Vasik <ovasik@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Ondrej Vasik <ovasik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-23 09:43:42 EDT --- [WARN] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint ttcp-1.12-23.fc17.src.rpm i686/ttcp-1.12-23.fc17.i686.rpm ttcp.spec ttcp.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/ttcp.1.gz 55: warning: `Ex' not defined ttcp.i686: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/ttcp.1.gz 57: warning: `Ee' not defined 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Old manpage contains a few occurences of probably deprecated manpage macros. Probably could be fixed based on http://www.catb.org/~esr/doclifter/prepatch/ttcp.1.patch [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}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [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. [OK] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. $ sha256sum ttcp.c ttcp.c.1 e630a95788efacfee226dff3550e58ed908987ef96817efc8ad4862657a60c3b ttcp.c e630a95788efacfee226dff3550e58ed908987ef96817efc8ad4862657a60c3b ttcp.c.1 [OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [N/A] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [N/A] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [N/A] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [N/A] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [OK] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [OK] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [N/A] 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 (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) 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 dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [N/A] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [N/A] 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. [N/A] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [N/A] 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. [N/A] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [N/A] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [N/A] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [N/A] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [N/A] 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. [OK] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. A bit buggy manpage is not a blocker for review approval, APPROVED. Please close it CURRENTRELEASE once you fix the manpage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review