https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=833562 --- Comment #2 from Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> --- New scratch build (because yours was deleted): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4218675 No recognizable issues from rpmlint: $ rpmlint -i -v * wmudmount.i686: I: checking wmudmount.i686: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US A dictionary for the Enchant spell checking library is not available for the language given in the info message. Spell checking will proceed with rpmlint's built-in implementation for localized tags in this language. For better spell checking results in this language, install the appropriate dictionary that Enchant will use for this language, often for example hunspell-* or aspell-*. wmudmount.i686: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/wmudmount/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmudmount.src: I: checking wmudmount.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/wmudmount/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmudmount.src: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/wmudmount/wmudmount-1.13.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) wmudmount.x86_64: I: checking wmudmount.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/wmudmount/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmudmount-debuginfo.i686: I: checking wmudmount-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/wmudmount/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmudmount-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking wmudmount-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/wmudmount/ (timeout 10 seconds) wmudmount.spec: I: checking-url http://downloads.sourceforge.net/wmudmount/wmudmount-1.13.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. GPLv2+ [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [x] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. See below. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum * 988955faca6db4f9c4d26f8b79a38744 wmudmount-1.13.tar.gz 988955faca6db4f9c4d26f8b79a38744 wmudmount-1.13.tar.gz.packaged [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - See Koji build above. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [+] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache must be updated. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled. [.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information, the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), ... [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file Exception for dockapps, which are gui apps, but no desktop file is needed [.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [x] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream... There's no license file in the package. You should inform upstream development about this. For the time being, you should add one from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.txt [+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway) [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Works properly on my machine (x86_64). Not perfect in windowed mode :( but dockapps are actually designed for the dock/slit/wharf. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ... [+] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. As already mentionde, please add a license file. Moreover, you might shrink the BuildRequires a bit. You may drop libX11-devel, because it is a recursive dependency of gtk2-devel. -- 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