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=693204 --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-21 06:49:21 EDT --- [x] package passes [-] not applicable [!] package fails == MUST == [!] rpmlint output $ rpmlint ./php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo* php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/pear/test/PHP_CompatInfo/tests/_files/source13873.php php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary phpci php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{pear_docdir} php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US docdir -> doc dir, doc-dir, Doctor php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. => Those can be safely ignored except for the FSF address. About the FSF address, it is apparently in a file used by the unit tests. This file has been copied from the Beehive Forum source code, which is under the GPL. See below. [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. => The following file is "GPL or MIT"-licensed: misc/jquery-1.5.min.js => The following file is GPLv2+-licensed: tests/_files/source13873.php => The following file is PHP-licensed: tests/_files/source7813.php So your license tag seems incorrect. I'd say it should be "BSD and MIT and GPLv2+ and PHP", but we probably should ask Fedora-Legal about it. :) Or you could decide to remove those unit tests from the package? Or... [x] 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 PHP_CompatInfo-2.1.0.tgz* ee5ea43c96c058911068066eb76a41074268366c PHP_CompatInfo-2.1.0.tgz [x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture => Tested in mock, the required packages are not all in Fedora yet. [-] 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 [x] 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 [x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage $ rpm2cpio php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo-2.1.0-1.fc16.noarch.rpm | cpio -id 4394 blocks $ du -sh usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_CompatInfo/ 920K usr/share/doc/pear/PHP_CompatInfo/ => It's small, no need to separate it. [x] 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 [-] 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 [-] 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 == Summary == MUST: - Incorrect FSF address must be reported upstream, perhaps add a comment in the spec or at least in the review request? - Clarify the licensing situation. SHOULD: - Not a blocker, but the phpci binary should have a manpage. -- 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