https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835275 Matt Spaulding <mspaulding06@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mspaulding06@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Matt Spaulding <mspaulding06@xxxxxxxxx> --- This is an unofficial practice review. Rpmlint Output: shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ksh -> ks, sh, ssh shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zsh -> sh, ssh, ash shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getopt -> get opt, get-opt, treetop shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US google -> Google, goggle, googly shflags.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gflags -> flags, gulags, g flags shflags.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/shflags-1.0.3/doc/LICENSE.shunit2 shflags.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/shflags-1.0.3/doc/LGPL-2.1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. Package Review: - package meets package naming guidelines - legible and in American English - license LGPLv2 is slightly ambiguous (see below) - license file included in %doc section - MD5 sum on tarball matches that of the upstream tarball - no missing BuildRequires - util-linux BuildRequires is unnecessary (see below) - no locales included - not a relocatable package - does not own all directories it creates (see below) - no duplicate files in %files section and all file names are valid utf-8 - needs to preserve timestamps on file copy (see below) - consistent macro use - might want to have a -docs subpackage, though not required - example scripts in %doc should not be executable (see below) - no bundled system libraries - no need for .desktop file - builds on x86 successfully in mock - verified that shflags works as expected using examples included in the tarball - included tests are not being run (see below) Fixes: - I believe util-linux is unnecessary in BuildRequires section and should be removed. The package exception guidelines mention util-linux-ng which is essentially the same package - contact upstream to fix incorrect fsf address (which you have commented you are doing) - contact upstream regardling license type. It's not clear if this is LGPLv2 or LGPLv2+ - no man pages, maybe work with upstream to get these added - make example scripts not executable with "chmod -x" - when copying files in %install section use "cp -p" to preserve timestamps - need to own /usr/share/doc/shflags directory in %files section - tests included in tarball should be run in the %check section -- 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