https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829644 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji scratchbuild for F-18: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4135504 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint libmspub-* libmspub.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libreoffice -> interoffice libmspub.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libreoffice -> interoffice ^^^ false positives. libmspub.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libmspub-0.0.0/COPYING.LGPL ^^^ Not a blocker but I advise you to inform upstream about that. libmspub-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ No docs within this sub-package. libmspub-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/libmspub-doc-0.0.0/COPYING.LGPL ^^^ See above. libmspub-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ No docs within this sub-package. libmspub-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pub2xhtml libmspub-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pub2raw ^^^ No man-pages. Perhaps someone will provide them someday. 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 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. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (Several licenses, as stated in the sources). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %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 spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum libmspub-0.0.0.tar.xz* ec9aaca929a2691c02cd2d8d99e6b7a5fc3ed2636b27db835757aca6898ce5a1 libmspub-0.0.0.tar.xz ec9aaca929a2691c02cd2d8d99e6b7a5fc3ed2636b27db835757aca6898ce5a1 libmspub-0.0.0.tar.xz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + 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. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 Large documentation files are stored in a *.doc subpackage. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package and necessary runtime requirement added. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). Beware. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So far so good but I've a couple of a friendly advices. * Since you clearly don't have any intentions to package it for really outdated systems like EL4 you may consider dropping defattr(...) attribute from %files sections 0 it's not required since rpm 4.4. afaik. * The package's so-objects have really strange naming schemes. Hopefully this is handled by pkg-config so I wouldnt bother. But I noticed (by looking at the contents of *.pc file) that this package has strict versioned dependencies on several libraries - "Requires: libwpd-0.9 libwpd-stream-0.9 libwpg-0.2". Please don't forget about that - some of these libraries could increase/change their numbering scheme in the future which in turn might (or might not) break building against this one. These are not a blocking issues (and frankly speaking not an issues either) so this package is APPROVED. -- 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