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=787834 --- Comment #6 from Ofer Schreiber <oschreib@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-07 07:22:22 EST --- * I'm not an official packager* Package Review ============== (generated by fedora-review 0.1.2, some additional info by myself) Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [?]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files server section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [?]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint fishpoll-0.1.5-1.fc17.src.rpm fishpoll.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C fishpoll fishpoll.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fishpoke -> fish poke, fish-poke, fishpond 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. rpmlint fishpoll-server-0.1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm fishpoll-server.noarch: W: no-documentation fishpoll-server.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fishpolld fishpoll-server.noarch: W: missing-lsb-keyword Default-Stop in /etc/rc.d/init.d/fishpoll fishpoll-server.noarch: W: missing-lsb-keyword Short-Description in /etc/rc.d/init.d/fishpoll fishpoll-server.noarch: W: no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/fishpoll fishpoll-server.noarch: W: incoherent-init-script-name fishpoll ('fishpoll-server', 'fishpoll-serverd') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. rpmlint fishpoll-0.1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm fishpoll.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C fishpoll fishpoll.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fishpoke 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /tmp/review/fish/787834/fishpoll-0.1.5.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 79e52b31678f1845706b5614678346af MD5SUM upstream package : f87c42cfe5f8ead2ba3383a2e4cb6025 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: 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 Dist tag is present. [-]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. []: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [!]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. ---- Fix: Sources used to build srpm must match upstream sources. TODO: BuildRoot tag, buildroot cleaning in %install and the $clean section aren't needed anymore. Remove them unless you plan to use this package in EPELs Fix: LICENSE file is missing, please query upstream about it Fix: init script should be named fishpoll-server (or fishpoll-serverd) Fix: Missing LSB keywords in init script - Default-Stop, Short-Description Fix: Reload entry is missing in init script Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 External plugins: -- 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