https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=798109 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Koji scratchbuild for F-18: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4162504 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint utouch-frame-* utouch-frame.src:22: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 22, tab: line 1) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. work ~/Desktop: The only message is just a small cosmetic suggestion. + 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 must match the actual license. The proper tag is GPLv3+. + 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. work ~/Desktop: sha256sum utouch-frame-2.2.1.tar.bz2* 4a42d38e62230a8b9318de9fe49f566321d49b78a8798b0121528ff7ae2a34e7 utouch-frame-2.2.1.tar.bz2 4a42d38e62230a8b9318de9fe49f566321d49b78a8798b0121528ff7ae2a34e7 utouch-frame-2.2.1.tar.bz2.1 work ~/Desktop: + 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 No extremely large documentation files. + 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 MUST require the base package using a fully versioned dependency and with an %{_isa} tag: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}. Please add %{?_isa} part. + 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. Please, fix licensing tag and add %{?_isa} tag to the *-devel subpackage dependency on the main package and I'll finish reviewing this. -- 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