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=741626 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2012-01-21 08:52:06 EST --- I take this one. The package looks good to me -- I just recommend to explicitly remove cenmass.o in %prep in order to prevent linking this object file. Also, upstream has released a new version of packmol. Maybe you'd like to update the package. The license headers are still missing but there's a file LICENSE present now which refers to GPLv2 only while COPYING still contains the GPLv3 license text. Upstream should definitely fix this. The license tag GPL+ is nonetheless correct, though. $ rpmlint *.rpm packmol.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lamellar -> Carmella, Mallarme, Marcella packmol.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} packmol.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} packmol.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} packmol.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://packmol.googlecode.com/files/packmol-1.1.1.258.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found packmol.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lamellar -> Carmella, Mallarme, Marcella packmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary packmol packmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary packmol_solvate 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. The above warnings can safely be ignored: - macros in comments are expected - invalid url warning is false positive - spelling errors are false positive - no manual pages available for the binaries --------------------------------- 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. - GPLv3 license text present - no copyright information in sources => GPL+ [+] 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 packmol-1.1.1.258.tar.gz* d1b12036b94f48c92595e9c4d3180009 packmol-1.1.1.258.tar.gz d1b12036b94f48c92595e9c4d3180009 packmol-1.1.1.258.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. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] 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 (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), 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: [+] 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: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] 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. [X] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. - maybe you can ask upstream to think about adding manpages for the executables -- 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