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=815951 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-25 07:42:35 EDT --- Few notes: * You may drop %clean section entirely. I believe this package isn't intended to run on onl EL boxes. * Unowned directories ** %{_libdir}/weston/ ** %{_libdir}/weston/ Either specifically mark them as %dir in the %files section or change %files section to that %{_bindir}/weston %{_bindir}/weston-launch %{_bindir}/weston-terminal %{_libdir}/weston/ %{_libexecdir}/weston-* %{_datadir}/weston/ * I don't like this line autoreconf -v --install || exit 1 So if autoreconf were fail for whatever reason what would we expect then? Successful building? Can you simplify this to "autoreconv -ivf" (notice -f switch)? * License field is wron. Must be "BSD and CC-BY-SA". The latter is for content. Otherwise it looks fine for me. REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is not silent but these messages are harmless. work ~/Desktop: rpmlint weston-* weston.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wayland -> waylaid, way land, way-land weston.src: W: strange-permission make-git-snapshot.sh 0770L weston.src: W: invalid-url Source0: weston-20120424.tar.bz2 weston.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wayland -> waylaid, way land, way-land weston.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weston weston.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weston-terminal weston.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weston-launch 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 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 except the notes stated above. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. - The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license. See above. - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package (or for the part of the package), MUST be included in %doc. Please mark data/COPYRIGHT as %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 Source1. + 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. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. - The package MUST own all directories that it creates. See my notes above. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has an empty %clean section, which is ok but weird a bit. + 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. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain devel-libraries files. 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application in a commot sense (no need to have a *.desktop file) + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So, please, address/explain my notes and I'll finish it. -- 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