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=760645 Aleksandra Bookwar <alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Aleksandra Bookwar <alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-06 18:25:27 EST --- Hi, I am not a packager yet, so this is just informal review. + rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. Except false spelling alarm no errors: $ rpmlint ergo ergo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bin2m ergo.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ergo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. $ rpmlint ergo-debuginfo 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ergo-3.1-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. + The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . There is "alt-ergo" package in Fedora repositories, but there are no conflicts in filenames or libs. + The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. + The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . + The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Are you sure that this is the GPLv3+ version? The project site states only GPL without proper versioning, so you probably need to clarify it. + 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. + The spec file must be written in American English. + The spec file for the package MUST be legible. + The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. + The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. * 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, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. + A package must own all directories that it creates. + A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. + Each package must consistently use macros. + 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. * In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + 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. + Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. * If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. * The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. + package builds in mock. + The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. + functions as described in tutorial + 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. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. And it seems that except man-pages and small license question, the package fits all the guidelines. Hope to see it soon in the repos. -- 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