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=806093 Rui Matos <tiagomatos@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Rui Matos <tiagomatos@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-13 09:19:14 EDT --- Here's a more formal review and it actually caught a problem: + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: glade.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided glade3 glade.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/glade-3.12.0/COPYING.LGPL glade.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/glade-3.12.0/COPYING.GPL glade.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glade-previewer glade.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary glade glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/gladeui/glade-accumulators.c glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/src/glade-close-button.h glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/src/glade-close-button.c glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/gladeui/glade-clipboard.c glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/plugins/gtk+/glade-fixed.c glade-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/glade-3.12.0/gladeui/glade-builtins.c glade-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided glade3-libgladeui-devel glade-libs.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided glade3-libgladeui glade-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/glade-libs-3.12.0/COPYING.LGPL glade-libs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/glade-libs-3.12.0/COPYING.GPL 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 5 warnings. + Rpmlint warnings/errors are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: bc743c2b94b674770b67cbc0c90fb3eb glade-3.12.0.tar.xz bc743c2b94b674770b67cbc0c90fb3eb glade-3.12.0.tar.xz.upstream + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane + The spec file handles locales properly + ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries + Package isn't relocatable + Package MUST own all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package + Header files should be in -devel n/a Static libraries should be in -static + Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package + -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files + Proper .desktop file handling ! Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages %doc %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/ This is taking ownership of both /usr/share/gtk-doc /usr/share/gtk-doc/html which doesn't look right. Instead the -devel package should require gtk-doc I believe. Hmmm, and now that I look at it, the build.log says: Build Reference Manual: no but here it is being installed. Sounds like an upstream bug, but gtk-doc should be added to the BuildRequires too and maybe explicitly enable gtk-doc in %configure. + Filenames are valid UTF-8 -- 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