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=782456 James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-23 14:13:23 EST --- > [ PASS ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the > build produces. The output should be posted in the review.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint) # rpmlint ~/Downloads/kredentials-2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm kredentials.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kerberos -> kerosene kredentials.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kerberos -> kerosene 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > [ FAIL ] MUST: The package must be named according to the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines The name is correct, but I think the rpm %{version} should match the upstream version. Specifically, it seems that this is 2.0-pre1. Perhaps consult the pre-release / snapshot version suggestions at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages Based on that, I might recomment %{version}-%{release} = 2.0-0.1.pre1 > [ PASS ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package > <code>%{name}</code>, in the format <code>%{name}.spec</code> unless your > package has an exemption. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name). > [ PASS ] MUST: The package must meet the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. > [ PASS ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and > meet the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines. Looks good in the matrix at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > [ PASS ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames) > [ FAIL ] MUST: 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 <code>%doc</code>.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License Text) Your %files is missing a %doc for the following files: * kredentials/AUTHORS * kredentials/AdditionalInfo.txt * kredentials/CMakeLists.txt * kredentials/COPYING * kredentials/ChangeLog * kredentials/INSTALL * kredentials/NEWS * kredentials/README * kredentials/TODO > [ PASS ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#summary) > [ WARN ] MUST: The spec file for the package '''MUST''' be legible. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Spec_Legibility) Not required, but I'd recommend replacing mkdir, cp make w/ their macro equivalents. This is nit-picky, I know ... so feel free to ignore if you don't agree. > [ PASS ] MUST: 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 > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL for how to deal with > this. c999b200377706785ec8e1ae5ef61216 kredentials_2.0-pre1.tar.bz2 c999b200377706785ec8e1ae5ef61216 /tmp/jlaska-rpm/SOURCES/kredentials_2.0-pre1.tar.bz2 > [ FAIL ] MUST: The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into > binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Support) See failed scratch build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3726309 > [ NA ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on > an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > <code>ExcludeArch</code>. Each architecture listed in <code>ExcludeArch</code> > '''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 <code>ExcludeArch</code> line. > (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures) > [ WARN ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in > <code>BuildRequires</code>, except for any that are listed in the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 section of the > Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as <code>BuildRequires</code> is > optional. Apply common sense. This may be why the scratch build fails, unclear > [ NA ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by > using the <code>%find_lang</code> macro. Using > <code>%{_datadir}/locale/*</code> is strictly forbidden.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files) > [ NA ] MUST: 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 <code>%post</code> and <code>%postun</code>. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries) > [ NA ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries) > [ NA ] MUST: 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. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RelocatablePackages) > [ PASS ] MUST: 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. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership) > [ PASS ] MUST: 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)(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles) > [ PASS ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be > set with executable permissions, for example. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions) > [ FAIL ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros) Please use either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ... not both > [ PASS ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent) > [ NA ] MUST: 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). (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation) > [ PASS ] MUST: 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. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation) > [ NA ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages) > [ NA ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries) > [ NA ] 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. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages) > [ NA ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the > base package using a fully versioned dependency: <code>Requires: > %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} </code> (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage) > [ NA ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must > be removed in the spec if they are built.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries) > [ PASS ] 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. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop) > [ PASS ] MUST: 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 > <code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> 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. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership) > [ PASS ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilenameEncoding) > [ FAIL ] MUST: The upstream project URL should be http://freecode.com/projects/kredentials Also, note that you can use more macros in the Source0 URL Perhaps you'd want ... Source0: http://people.csail.mit.edu/noahm/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}_%{version}-pre1.tar.bz2 Other nit ... You might consider calling out files (instead of using globs) in your %files. Moreso for the _bindir stuff. Just a thought -- 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