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=769794 Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martinerikwerner@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-12 16:41:58 EDT --- Informal review: rpmlint output: rpm2targz.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) gz -> g, z, gs rpm2targz.src: E: no-description-tag rpm2targz.src: E: no-changelogname-tag rpm2targz.src: W: invalid-license as-is rpm2targz.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/rpm2targz/rpm2targz .README.Gentoo rpm2targz.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/rpm2targz/rpm2targz .README rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tarbz2 rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tarlzma rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2txz rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tarxz rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tar rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpmunpack rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tgz rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2tbz2 rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpm2targz rpm2targz.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rpmoffset rpm2targz-debuginfo.x86_64: E: no-changelogname-tag rpm2targz-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license as-is rpm2targz-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 17 warnings. Please include a %description - section for your package, bits from the text in rpm2targz.README might be appropriate. The license "as-is" is not a valid license, It appears that the license for the 'rpm2targz' script is a custom one, but in essence seems to be equivalent to a 2-Clause BSD license. Please contact upstream and clarify that this is the intention, and possibly aks them to use this well-know license instead of a custom one. Please also inquire about the license for the remaining files in the tarball, since this license specifically refers to the 'script' and nothing more. BuildRequires: xz is superfluous, as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires Are you targeting EPEL5? If not you can remove the following bits: ### BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) (in %install) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (all of) %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT (in %files) %defattr(-,root,root,-) ### Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions You should use the macro %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin and you might want to use a wildcard (*) to include all binaries instead of listing them one by one (unless you happen to need to have a comment with an individual license or so). Similarly you should use %{_docdir}/%{name}/ in order to declare ownership over this new folder. Don't use %{_docdir} as-is, this package should not own that folder, but rather the rpm2targz subfolder, as per above. Also, depending on the circumstance, it might be better to skip creating the doc dir altogether and simply rely on the %doc macro, like so: %doc rpm2targz.README rpm2targz.README.Gentoo This will likely fix the permission errors reported by rpmlint, also. In addition, the information in the .Gentoo README file seems to be outdated, it might be an idea to not include it? The debuginfo appears to have no surces, likely due to the binary being compiled without the debug flag, please use make %{?_smp_mflags} CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}" in your %build section in order to enable this. Please create a changelog, for a template you can use: $ rpmdev-bumpspec -u "Your Name your@xxxxxxxxx" rpm2targz.spec and edit it accordingly, and bump it as you update your spec file (also during the review iterations). For bonus points: write a brief manpage for the different tools and submit this upstream. -- 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