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=755139 --- Comment #2 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-11-19 10:01:57 EST --- +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [=] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint ./python-nose1.1.spec ./python-nose1.1.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: nose-1.1.2.tar.gz See below for source URL. 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unattested python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unittest -> unit test, unit-test, unattested python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtest -> lib test, lib-test, liberate python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdout -> stout, std out, std-out python-nose1.1.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization, customize, customarily okay, all in common usage but I don't like customizable very much being British. [+] 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 be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. LGPLv2+ and Public Domain, [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. okay the man page is public domain. [+] MUST: 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. lgpl.txt [+] 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, as provided in the spec URL. It should move to a proper URL. [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Builds in mock. [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires Builds in mock. [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. No locales. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. No shared links. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review Not relocatable. [+] MUST: 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. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [=] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. $RPM_OPT_FLAGS and %{buildroot} both in use. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it 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: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [+] MUST: 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. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] MUST: 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Summary: 1) I would move to the real source url since the tar works perfectly well on RHEL6. 2) The docs sub-package does not contain the license file and does not require the main package. I would add a dep on the main package to the doc package. 3) %{buildroot} and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are in use: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS Actually RPM_OPT_FLAGS should not even be there , this is a noarch package. 4) A README.Fedora file should be added since this package obviusly falls into this category. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python_Eggs#Multiple_Versions Quick check that it imports, - yes. # python Python 2.6.6 (r266:84292, Jul 20 2011, 10:22:43) [GCC 4.4.5 20110214 (Red Hat 4.4.5-6)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import sys >>> sys.path.insert(0,'/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/nose-1.1.2-py2.6.egg') >>> import nose -- 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