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=787024 --- Comment #3 from Rich Mattes <richmattes@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-27 00:42:37 EDT --- + = OK, - = Needs Work, N = Not Applicable Package Review MUST items: [+] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/m4rie-* m4rie-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This warning is OK, the -static package has a dependency on the base package which does include the license/documentation. [+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . No naming conflicts, versioning matches upstream [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. Spec file matches base package name. [+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. I don't see any issues with this package as far as the guidelines go [+] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. GPLv2+ is approved [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Spec indicates GPLv2+ [+] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. COPYING file is included [+] The spec file must be written in American English. No spelling or grammar errors [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. Well-commented, easy to follow. [+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ md5sum m4rie-20120415.tar.gz ../SOURCES/m4rie-20120415.tar.gz 1135a21acae7a1e1eb30d3ad062b4237 m4rie-20120415.tar.gz 1135a21acae7a1e1eb30d3ad062b4237 ../SOURCES/m4rie-20120415.tar.gz [+] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4027666 Build fails for f16, but if you're targeting later releases it's ok. [+] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Build works on primary architectures [+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. Mock and koji builds pass [N] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [+] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. ldconfig called appropriately [+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. No bundled libraries anywhere in the source [N] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [+] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Package only includedir datadir subdirectories it creates [+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) License text is not a special case, no other duplication. [+] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. All permissions appropriate. [+] Each package must consistently use macros. No inconsistencies. [+] The package must contain code, or permissable content. Contains only libraries, headers, and library documentation. [N] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage Devel pacakge under 200k with devel docs included. [+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package. Static library contained in a separate subpackage, but the static subpackage should Require the -devel subpackage instead of the base package, as headers are needed to link against the static library [+] Development files must be in a -devel package. Unversioned libs, api docs, and headers are in the -devel package. [+] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} All Requires: fields use the isa appropriately [+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. Removed at install time. [N] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. No GUI. [+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Packages only own files and directories they create. [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. No non-UTF8 characters present. The packaging guidelines indicate that static packages should be avoided at all costs unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. Since this is a small math library, I'm ok with providing a static subpackage, especially if something will use it in the future. However, the static subpackage should be requiring the -devel subpackage as the static library isn't of much use without include files. -- 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