https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520 Ulrich Schwickerath <ulrich.schwickerath@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ulrich.schwickerath@xxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Ulrich Schwickerath <ulrich.schwickerath@xxxxxxx> --- Hi, Steve, Issues: ------- rpmlint produces some errors on the source rpm: hiera.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging hiera.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging hiera.src:2: E: hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8} Maybe http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#ruby_applications is useful. These guidelines also specify that ruby applications should be installed into %{_datadir} Review: ------- [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names. [!] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] PreReq is not used. [x] Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)). [x] Package run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) and the beginning of %install. [x] Package use %makeinstall only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] Changelog in prescribed format. [-] Rpmlint output is silent. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x] 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. [-] License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 429f5bb30834183b3a3b7237e636364b MD5SUM upstream package : 429f5bb30834183b3a3b7237e636364b [-] Compiler flags are appropriate. Nothing to compile [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Each %files section contains %defattr. [x] No %config files under /usr. [x] %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install file if it is a GUI application. [-] Package contains a valid .desktop file. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x] File names are valid UTF-8. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Package contains no bundled libraries. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. [x] Package contains no static executables. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. package contains only scripts [x] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] Package does not generate any conflict. [x] Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] Package installs properly. [x] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. -- 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