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=624182 --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann <mariobl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-03 15:33:50 EDT --- $ rpmlint -i -v *stardict-xmllittre.src: I: checking stardict-xmllittre.src: I: checking-url http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/horsligne.php (timeout 10 seconds) stardict-xmllittre.src: I: checking-url http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/dlds/XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar (timeout 10 seconds) stardict-xmllittre.noarch: I: checking stardict-xmllittre.noarch: I: checking-url http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/horsligne.php (timeout 10 seconds) stardict-xmllittre.spec: I: checking-url http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/dlds/XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar (timeout 10 seconds) stardict-xmllittre.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/dlds/XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar '' The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The URL seems to be unavailable, but with wget I can download the tarball. However, the server is terribly slow. --------------------------------- 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. [X] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. As far as I can read in the sources (or as detected by my translation software, because it's French only), there's no implicit declaration of GPLv3. Seems to be rather GPL+ than GPLv3. Would you explain the French README please? [X] 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 * 263506fab62afafda6a37c3f398bf994 XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar 263506fab62afafda6a37c3f398bf994 XMLittre_stardict_1.0.tar.packaged [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - Succesful Koji build available. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache must be updated. [.] 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: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled. [.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information, the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used. [+] 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. [+] 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: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), ... [.] 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 in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: 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... [+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway) [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. I assume the packager has tested it. I don't speak French, let alone this version of French. [.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ... [.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If you don't want to provide your package for EPEL <= 6, you may drop the following parts of your spec file: - the BuildRoot declaration. - the initial cleaning of ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} in %install - the %defattr line in %files -- 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