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=769832 --- Comment #8 from Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-12-22 09:15:35 EST --- The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . - Check The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec - Check The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines - Check, nothing obviously wrong. The COPYINg file needs to be included to support the license tag inthe spec file, but thats already been mentioned in the rpmlint output. The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - check The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] - Check 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. - This will be fixed when the warning about the lack of docs is fixed from the rpmlint output The spec file must be written in American English. - Check The spec file for the package MUST be legible. - Check The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. - Check, although the url needs updating in the spec file: [nhorman@hmsreliant jcm]$ rpm -ivh kmod-2-2.fc17.src.rpm 1:kmod warning: user jcm does not exist - using root warning: group jcm does not exist - using root warning: user jcm does not exist - using root 98%) warning: group jcm does not exist - using root ########################################### [100%] [nhorman@hmsreliant jcm]$ cd ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/^C [nhorman@hmsreliant jcm]$ md5sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/kmod-2.tar.xz 6017364434377f6724f749d7a28c5d7a /home/nhorman/rpmbuild/SOURCES/kmod-2.tar.xz wget: /home/nhorman/.netrc:1: unknown token “sZ3MK4yz5UH6” Resolving packages.profusion.mobi... 74.207.229.112 Connecting to packages.profusion.mobi|74.207.229.112|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 262484 (256K) [application/x-tar] Saving to: “kmod-2.tar.xz” 100%[==========================================================================>] 262,484 824K/s in 0.3s 2011-12-22 09:02:27 (824 KB/s) - “kmod-2.tar.xz” saved [262484/262484] [nhorman@hmsreliant jcm]$ md5sum ./kmod-2.tar.xz 6017364434377f6724f749d7a28c5d7a ./kmod-2.tar.xz The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture - Check, see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3601228 If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line - Not applicable, see previous 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. Apply common sense. - check, although, why is glibc-static required. The initramfs has glibc available doesn't it? We should be able to build dynamically here. The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.- Not applicable, no human readable output provided from the pkg. 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. - check Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.- Check 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. - Not applicable, not relocatable. 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. - Check A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)- Check Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. - Check Each package must consistently use macros. - check The package must contain code, or permissable content. - Check Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). - Not applicable If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - Check Header files must be in a -devel package. - Check Static libraries must be in a -static package. - Not applicable, no static libraries 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. - should be fixed as per rpmlint output discussion. In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - Check Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.- Check 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. - Not applicable Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. - Check All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - Check. By an large, looks pretty good. I'd fix the rpmlint output errors, look at the static library use, and I'd say we're in pretty good shape. -- 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