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=698405 --- Comment #7 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-12-05 14:16:12 EST --- +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [=] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint ./mcollective.spec ./mcollective.spec:164: E: files-attr-not-set ./mcollective.spec:173: E: files-attr-not-set ./mcollective.spec:181: E: files-attr-not-set 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. Can you swap the lines: %doc COPYING %defattr(-,root,root,-) to get rid of this. $ rpmlint ./*.rpm This is still present: mcollective.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/mcollective See $ rpmlint -I service-default-enabled [+] 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. ASL 2.0 [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Licensing is very clear. [+] 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. COPYING [+] 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. $ md5sum mcollective-1.3.1.tgz ../SOURCES/mcollective-1.3.1.tgz c63901134ea66973702720861f020d3a mcollective-1.3.1.tgz c63901134ea66973702720861f020d3a ../SOURCES/mcollective-1.3.1.tgz [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.. [+] 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. [] 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: 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 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. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [to be checked.] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [=] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. You missed a few '-p' on the last installs: %{__install} -m0640 etc/server.cfg.dist %{buildroot}/etc/mcollective/server.cfg %{__install} -m0640 etc/client.cfg.dist %{buildroot}/etc/mcollective/client.cfg %{__install} -m0644 etc/facts.yaml.dist %{buildroot}/etc/mcollective/facts.yaml %{__install} -m0644 etc/rpc-help.erb %{buildroot}/etc/mcollective/rpc-help.erb Looking good generally, let me have a go at installing and running it. Steve. -- 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