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=810619 --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-03 08:08:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > > A BR on sqlite-devel is also necessary. > Added, thanks > [!]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > > Since bigloo has ExcludeArch: ppc64, this package must also. > Added > [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 Ah, yes; the bigloo version there is too old so we won't be supporting it. Removed. > [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. > > rpmlint hop-2.3.0-0.rc2.1.fc18.src.rpm > > hop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolkits -> toolkit, tool > kits, tool-kits This is surely a problem with the dictionary not being comprehensive. I'll ignore this unless you have strong objections? > hop.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://hop.inria.fr/ HTTP Error 500: Internal > Server Error > hop.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > ftp://ftp-sop.inria.fr/indes/fp/Hop/hop-2.3.0-rc2.tar.gz <urlopen error ftp > error: timed out> > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > 2.3.0 final is out and the RC tarball has been removed; I've updated the spec > hop.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided scheme2js Explained in the spec comment -- this is not an apple-for-apple replacement for scheme2js, and there's no need to provide the old package since the old version is not a dependency of anything: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#Do_I_need_to_Provide_my_old_package_names.3F > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/epassword/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/dashboard/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/weblets/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/color/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/hop/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/hz/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/test/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/hop/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/doc/.afile > hop.i686: E: zero-length > /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/dashboard/etc/dashboard-rfc.png > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/shutdown/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/wizard/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/trace/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/info/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/wiki/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/home/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/hzbuilder/.afile > hop.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/hop/2.3.0/weblets/webfilter/.afile > hop.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hopc > hop.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hop-2.3.0 > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 22 warnings. > The .afile files have substantial information inside them, so I wouldn't remove them without checking with upstream first. manpages problems are just warnings, and with the zero-length image files, it's probably better that they are zero-length than if they're not found (and thus causing artifacts on displayed web pages that link to them?) > > rpmlint hop-debuginfo-2.3.0-0.rc2.1.fc18.i686.rpm > > hop-debuginfo.i686: W: invalid-url URL: http://hop.inria.fr/ HTTP Error 500: > Internal Server Error > hop-debuginfo.i686: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/src/debug/tmp 01777L > hop-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. > I'll probably just disable the debuginfo generation > [!]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. Fixed > [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. > There does not appear to be any upstream test suite. I wonder who added the requirement that rpmlint output "MUST" be silent? Some warnings are inevitable, and sometimes even errors are just false positives. Will post the updated package soon. -- 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