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=656082 --- Comment #16 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-14 16:09:59 EST --- Question 1: why is the release number 0.1, instead of 1? Question 2: wouldn't http://cprops.sourceforge.net/ be a better value for URL? If you don't intend to use this spec file for an EPEL package, then you can delete the following spec file elements, all of which are unnecessary in every current Fedora release: the BuildRoot tag, "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" at the top of %install, the entire %clean script, and %defattr in the %files sections. Note that the rpmlint output below is from the installed packages, not the binary RPMs, and was created with the changes in comment 15 applied. +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) N: not applicable MUST: [=] rpmlint output: libcprops.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US trie -> tire, true, tie libcprops.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcp -> pct, tsp, tip libcprops.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP libcprops.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt libcprops.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dbms -> DBMS, dims, dams libcprops.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libcprops.so.10.4.0 linux-vdso.so.1 libcprops.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcprops.so.10.4.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 libcprops.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libcp_dbms_postgres.so.0.0.0 linux-vdso.so.1 libcprops.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Those are all innocuous, except for the shared-lib-calls-exit warning. Please check with upstream about returning an error code instead of exiting. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [-] package meets the packaging guidelines: only one small problem, the devel package should require the main package like this, as documented at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [+] package uses a Fedora approved license [+] license field matches the actual license [-] license file is included in %doc: please add it. Consider adding README to %doc, too, and maybe even the example directory. [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum is da30a8bdc34cee023372bdbb7352ee76 for both [+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64) [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [+] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [-] package owns all directories that it creates: it does not own /usr/include/cprops. Get rid of the "*" on the end of the %files entry, so that it reads: %{_includedir}/cprops/ [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [+] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [+] .so in -devel [+] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contain available translations [+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386 [+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64 [+] package functions as described: light testing only [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts -- 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