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=785727 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-09 03:20:01 EST --- Good: ==== - rpmlint checks return: ocaml-camlimages-4.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm ocaml-camlimages.src:89: W: macro-in-comment %exclude ocaml-camlimages.src:89: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} ocaml-camlimages.src:103: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir} ocaml-camlimages.src: W: invalid-url Source1: camlimages-2.2.0-htmlref.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. These can all be ignored. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPLv2 with exceptions) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file - devel package ok - no .la files - post/postun ldconfig not needed since no libs directly under %{_libdir} - devel requires base package n-v-r Should Fix ====== -Drop these 3 lines (use rpms internal dep generator instead): %define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0 %define __find_requires /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-requires.sh %define __find_provides /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-provides.sh -Make opt unconditional (not 100% sure about this, but if lablgtk does it can probably be dropped and it makes the spec easier to read) -Using: https://bitbucket.org/camlspotter/camlimages/get/v4.0.1.tar.gz as Souce0 works fine for me, wget gets a v4.0.1.tar.gz, spectool -g gets a v4.0.1.tar.gz and rpmlint likes it (iow it can download and verify the source) -Doing rm -rf buildroot in %install and having a %clean is no longer needed now a days, and should not be done when not manually defining buildroot inside the spec - -devel packages should require the main package like this: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} So please add %{?_isa} there. -You could also drop the 2 %defattr lines, those are also not needed now a days Since there are no blockers, this package is APPROVED! But please do consider fixing some of the should fix items. -- 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