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=753597 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2012-01-07 07:28:58 EST --- The package looks almost fine. There are just a few minor things that need some attention: - Drop DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT from the make statement in %build. As far as I see, it's not necessary to build the package properly. - Drop "%post devel -p /sbin/ldconfig" and "%postun devel -p /sbin/ldconfig". ldconfig doesn't need to be called for symlinks. - You can remove "rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}" from the %install section. The %clean section is redundant as well. - I recommend not to package the .3 man pages generated by doxygen. Instead, add the html variant. Since you create a -docs subpackage, move the doxygen docs there: + drop the whole %doc line from %files devel + add "%doc dox/html/" to %files doc - add the following lines to the %install section: mkdir tmp mv ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_docdir}/yazpp/ tmp and the line in %files docs should look like this: %doc tmp/* dox/html/ This way you ensure that all the doc files go to the same (and correct) directory. $ rpmlint yazpp-* yazpp.src:48: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build make %{?_smp_mflags} DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} all dox yazpp-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zclient yazpp-utils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zlint 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] 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 meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] 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. $ md5sum yazpp-1.2.7.tar.gz* 587f778f34b9b16de47ec26a2a3d1927 yazpp-1.2.7.tar.gz 587f778f34b9b16de47ec26a2a3d1927 yazpp-1.2.7.tar.gz.upstream [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [X] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. - drop the calls of ldconfig for the devel package [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. - %{docdir}/yazpp/ is unowned [X] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. - doc/yazpp-config.1* is listed twice [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [.] MUST: 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. EPEL <= 5 only: [X] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: 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. [+] SHOULD: Your package should contain 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