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=788718 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-16 05:44:13 EST --- One issue I found so far - you should use "ln -s" instead of simple "ln" which creates hardlinks instead of softlinks. See the latest line in the %install section. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable +/- rpmlint is not silent. However I think in this case his messages can be omitted safely: work ~/Desktop: rpmlint clalsadrv-* clalsadrv.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US clalsadrv.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/clalsadrv-2.0.0/COPYING clalsadrv-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/clalsadrv-2.0.0/libs/clalsadrv.h clalsadrv-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/clalsadrv-2.0.0/libs/clalsadrv.cc clalsadrv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation clalsadrv-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/clalsadrv.h 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + 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 (GPLv2 or later as it stated in the source files). - The License field in the package spec file must matche the actual license. Correct field value is GPLv2+ (see licensing headers in the source files)/ + 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. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum clalsadrv-2.0.0.tar.bz2* 7886b60ea79ad16f2353bb5165404ffac8287ec56704f2d07cc5804447674a2f clalsadrv-2.0.0.tar.bz2 7886b60ea79ad16f2353bb5165404ffac8287ec56704f2d07cc5804447674a2f clalsadrv-2.0.0.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 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. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + 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. So, please, adjust "License" field and fix linking issue in the %install section before uploading. This package is APPROVED. -- 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