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=733603 --- Comment #8 from Nikos Roussos <nikos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-30 16:44:58 EDT --- I'll do a review. I'm not a sponsor, so this is informal. FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint sugar-ruler-11-1.fc15.noarch.rpm sugar-ruler.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Ruler is a simple collection of measurement tools that are displayed on the screen. sugar-ruler.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Ruler is a simple collection of measurement tools that are displayed on the screen. sugar-ruler.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities sugar-ruler.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/cpp/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/nah/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo sugar-ruler.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir /usr/share/locale/templates/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/templates/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/ton/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings. Some ideas: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines FIX - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv3+) You must specify a GPL version (see the COPYING file on upstream source) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL FIX - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 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 are listed in BuildRequires. Suggestion: Use a seperate BuildRequires line for each dependency OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang 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: Package does 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: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) FIX - MUST: consistently uses macros Use %{__python} on %install section as well OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application 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: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: Package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. 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: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin N/A - SHOULD: package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. FIX - SHOULD: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} It could be a good idea to add this for compatibility reasons. Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete FIX - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} Same as above, for the %install section N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. -- 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