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=738153 Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-15 04:40:30 EDT --- [X] rpmlint must be run on every package. ipset.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> stables, tables ipset.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rulesets -> rule sets, rule-sets, runlets ipset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> stables, tables ipset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rulesets -> rule sets, rule-sets, runlets 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. These can be safely ignored. [X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License is GPLv2 for most files, except: - one file on the kernel folder which is under Public Domain - the file ax_cflags_gcc_option.m4 in the m4 folder which is under GPLv3+ - the file ipset.8 on the src folder which is GPLv2+ GPLv2 is thus the most restrictive license and the GPLv3+ from the m4 file can be ignored as explained in the said file. [X] 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. [X] The spec file must be written in American English. [X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. source from the src.rpm: 781d5ad6a9e4d5bf6f8ccad3dfee8a578ed06c2a ipset-6.9.1.tar.bz2 upstream source: 781d5ad6a9e4d5bf6f8ccad3dfee8a578ed06c2a ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ipset-6.9.1.tar.bz2 [X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Build properly under 2.6.40.3-0.fc15.x86_64 Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3352759 [NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [X] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. [NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [X] 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. [X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [NA] 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [NA] 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. [X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [!] Each package must consistently use macros. make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f '{}' \; One of the two has to be changed [X] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [!] 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. I believe it could be interesting to include the ChangeLog file as %doc. [X] Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [X] 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. [X] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: non-noarch: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}. noarch: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA] 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. [X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. I am confident you can fix the macro used and add the ChangeLog files to the %doc section before importing the package into Fedora. This package is therefore APPROVED. -- 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