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=710904 --- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2011-12-17 04:55:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #7) > Also, if you give executable rights to the source files, you don't need to run > chmod in the spec. Scrap this, it will cause an rpmlint warning. ** rpmlint output: octave-communications.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge octave-communications.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/communications-1.1.0/packinfo/.autoload octave-communications.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/communications-1.1.0/packinfo/.autoload octave-communications.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/octave/packages/communications-1.1.0/@galois/fft.m octave-communications.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/octave/packages/communications-1.1.0/comms.info octave-communications.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings. These are expected for Octave packages. MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. ~OK - Please address the issues raised above. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK - License is GPLv2+. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK $ md5sum communications-1.1.0.tar.gz ../SOURCES/communications-1.1.0.tar.gz 1ec83d2757d5aa7d65be4a4c29741eba communications-1.1.0.tar.gz 1ec83d2757d5aa7d65be4a4c29741eba ../SOURCES/communications-1.1.0.tar.gz MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. NEEDSWORK - Add the missing BR. MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK - Remove the spurious %attr lines. MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. OK - Licenses and so on are already installed. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned, architecture dependent dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. NEEDSWORK EPEL: Clean section exists. NEEDSWORK EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A -- 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