https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817622 Gregor Tätzner <gregor@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Gregor Tätzner <gregor@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > (In reply to comment #5) > > > Do you think I should remove comments in spec file? > > Are you considering using git snapshots for your package in the near future? > > If not, then remove them. > This depends on how many times upstream release new stable versions. > Sometimes there are some useful bug fix on upstream but stable version is > not release quickly. I prefer to wait and see how the upstream works in the > next future. Ok? yeah, sure. > > > You should drop rm -rf %{buildroot} at %install > Here I follow an old Rex Dieter request, for the previous package: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711058#c25 imho this template needs to be updated. rm buildroot is only necessary for epel5. I suppose this package wouldn't even build on that platform. > > > oh, and can you align your indentations please. It looks messy :) > Sorry, which indentation? I see everything well...using my browser web or my > text editor (Vim). no I'm talking about the indendation in the spec file. i.e. Name: libkgapi Version:0.4.0 should be Name: libkgapi Version: 0.4.0 However, this is just cosmetic Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: 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 [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/greg/projects/Review/817622/libkgapi-0.4.0.tar.bz2 : MD5SUM this package : 90c44fd9456a6e34a8375f98250ad7cc MD5SUM upstream package : 90c44fd9456a6e34a8375f98250ad7cc [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. minor issues: [!]: 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 APPROVED just fix this minor issue before you commit your package and watch out for the project url. Thanks -- 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