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=737574 Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Golo Fuchert <packages@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-18 07:02:29 EDT --- Hej Jussi, almost nothing to complain about! Here is the formal review: $ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/lis-1.2.53-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm SPECS/lis.spec SRPMS/lis-1.2.53-1.fc15.src.rpm lis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable lis.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/liblis.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 lis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable -> salable, callable, calculable 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. No blocker here, upstream could be asked if the shared-lib-calls-exit is intended --------------------------------- 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. BSD according to source file headers and included COPYING file [+] 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 lis-1.2.53.tar.gz.* 275597239e7c47ab5aadeee7b7e2c6ce lis-1.2.53.tar.gz.packaged 275597239e7c47ab5aadeee7b7e2c6ce lis-1.2.53.tar.gz.upstream [+] 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 ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] 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. Man, that is a documentation-wonderland! Kudos to upstream... [+] 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: unversioned library file (*.so) must go in the -devel package. [+] 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: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install/-validate in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file ... [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) 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. ---------------- Comments: The -doc subpackage does not require the base package. This is of course not needed. However, since the pdf's packaged in the doc subpackage are from the source tarball, I would assume that they also fall under the same license. Then the doc subpackage should either require the base package or contain a copy of the license file: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing So please apply one of those options or prove me wrong. ;-) ---------------- Package 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