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=720857 --- Comment #25 from Tim Niemueller <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-10 20:02:14 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is not silent and some messages may not be ignored datalog.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Datalog - This is ok in this context datalog.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/lua/5.1/datalog.lua - You need to remove the executable bit on the permissions of this file datalog.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/lua/5.1/datalog.lua datalog.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/datalog-1.7/COPYING.LIB datalog-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/datalog-1.7/interp.c - This must be fixed, it changed a couple of years ago datalog.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary datalog - This is ok for now, but I'd recommend to add one to the project datalog-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on datalog/datalog-libs/libdatalog - this must be added as the devel sub-package contains a symlink to a file of the main package datalog-devel.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Datalog header file and library. - This must be fixed datalog-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL - This must be fixed, it is something like LGPLv2 or LGPLv2+, cf. wiki about acceptable licenses datalog-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation - Is there any API documentation you might add here? Otherwise this is ok. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. See rpmlint comment above. (-) The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (). Will re-check if license tag is fixed + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. package# sha256sum ../../SOURCES/datalog-1.7.tar.gz 35f003754591a3ae623269b78321063fc3a09a332001cc8c95587502aaf6f5d1 ../../SOURCES/datalog-1.7.tar.gz downloaded# sha256sum datalog-1.7.tar.gz 35f003754591a3ae623269b78321063fc3a09a332001cc8c95587502aaf6f5d1 datalog-1.7.tar.gz + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + Spec file calls ldconfig + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. - Permissions on files are set properly. See rpmlint + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files in devel sub-package 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + Non-suffix so file is in devel sub-package - Devel sub-package does not require main package + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. There remain a few action items that you see in the rpmlint section. Happy fixing, -- 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