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=684006 Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-23 11:10:33 EST --- perl-XML-Rules review ===================== rpmlint output: perl-XML-Rules.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/perl-XML-Rules-1.10/LICENSE perl-XML-Rules.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/perl-XML-Rules-1.10/example/testUTF.txt perl-XML-Rules.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/perl-XML-Rules-1.10/example/testUTF.pl perl-XML-Rules.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/perl-XML-Rules-1.10/example/test19.txt perl-XML-Rules.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/perl-XML-Rules-1.10/example/test18.xml perl-XML-Rules.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2XMLRules.pl perl-XML-Rules.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtd2XMLRules.pl You should contact upstream and suggest they update the GPL license text in any future release to fix the address (they can download this text from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.txt). The non-UTF8 files are explicitly using other encodings, so that can be ignored. This is quite common with XML-handling packages. The scripts without manpages are small and self-explanatory so I don't think there's anything to worry about there. - package and spec naming OK - package meets guidelines - license matches upstream and is OK for Fedora - upstream LICENSE file included in package - spec written in English and is legible - source tarball content matches upstream - package builds and runs OK on Fedora - buildreqs comprehensive and appropriate - no locale data or libraries to worry about - package is not intended to be relocatable - file and directory ownership OK - no duplicate files - file and directory permissions sane - macro usage inconsistent - see below - code, not content - no large documentation - docs don't affect runtime - no devel-type content to worry about - not a GUI app so no desktop file needed - filenames all plain ASCII - no scriptlets or subpackages to worry about Suggestions: My preference for handling addition/removal of shellbangs (or re-coding of documentation to UTF-8) is to use a patch rather than running sed (or iconv) in %prep. The reason for this is that future updates from upstream may include the shellbangs or have been recoded to UTF8 there, and if you don't notice that, you can end up with two shellbangs (ugly but harmless), or mangled documentation in the iconv case. Not a blocker though. The timestamp of the source tarball is more recent than the upstream tarball, though the content is the same. It would be neater to re-download it prior to putting in the Fedora lookaside cache so that the timestamp would match. You've used both "sed" and "%{__sed}" in the spec, which is inconsistent. You should just use "sed" - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros You can fix that in git before building the package. APPROVED, assuming you're going to fix the macro usage. -- 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