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=693198 --- Comment #3 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-19 00:30:23 EDT --- [x] package passes [-] not applicable [!] package fails == MUST == [x] rpmlint output $ rpmlint ./php-channel-bartlett* php-channel-bartlett.noarch: W: no-documentation php-channel-bartlett.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel}) ./php-channel-bartlett.spec:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel}) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. => The unversioned-explicit-provides php-channel(%{channel}) is conform to the packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP#Packages_for_CHANNEL_.28repository.29_configuration [x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license [!] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. => Your spec says BSD, but I can't find any information on the license, either in the channel file or on the upstream web site [-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file 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 $ sha1sum channel.xml 8041d033a8634aa0b071f569c3235129c7d435a7 channel.xml [x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3359442 [-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] 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 [-] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [x] 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 [x] Each package must consistently use macros [x] The package must contain code, or permissable content [-] 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 [-] Header files must be in a -devel package [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package [-] 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 [-] Subpackages requiring the base package [x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built [-] 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 == 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 [x] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] 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 [-] 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 [-] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts == To fix == I'm probably missing something, can you confirm where you found that the license for the channel is BSD? -- 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