https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836163 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is NOT silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint compton-* compton.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xcompmgr -> composer compton.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dana -> Dana, Adana, data ^^^ these messages can be ignored safely. compton.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary settrans ^^^ likewise. compton-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources ^^^ this one can not. See below. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 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 MUST meet the Packaging Guidelines. -- First the package must be built with the Fedora $CFLAGS (which is the reason that it has empty debuginfo). Please, use the following trick to adjust cflags %build CFLAGS="%{optflags}" make %{?_smp_mflags} -- Please drop an extension from a man-page. This is quite unlikely possibility but Fedora potentially could change the compression method (or even drop its usage at all) for the man-pages. Use wildcard instead. E.g. %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1* -- The settrans script requires xorg-x11-utils so please add this as a requirement: Requires: xorg-x11-utils + 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. An what I see at the LICENSE is definitely not a "Copyright only" but rather a BSD: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#3ClauseBSD https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#2ClauseBSD So proper tag is BSD. + 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 chjj-compton-d52f7a0.tar.gz* a2a6d89d00d2b2a1b4340c5762010bfdbf6769928d8553a4b7dd3ca2ad332e78 chjj-compton-d52f7a0.tar.gz a2a6d89d00d2b2a1b4340c5762010bfdbf6769928d8553a4b7dd3ca2ad332e78 chjj-compton-d52f7a0.tar.gz.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. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + 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. + 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. 0 No C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). 0 No devel sub-package. + 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. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please fix/explain issues and I'll finish reviewing it. -- 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