Comment # 10
from Miroslav Suchý
I just run fedora-review and this is issues sans those I waived out.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: MUST Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-
file-install file if it is a GUI application.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint 0ad-debuginfo-r11863-2.fc18.i686.rpm
0ad-debuginfo.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/tmp/818401/0ad-r11863-alpha-unix-build.tar.xz :
MD5SUM this package : f42a2e18515cbcd48b99f0ea3796b3a4
MD5SUM upstream package : f577f8d3a69146cfdc988a56f3caecd8
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
[!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Note: 0ad-r11863-2.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/0ad/libAtlasUI.so
0ad-r11863-2.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/0ad/libCollada.so
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
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