https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=840253 Matt Spaulding <mspaulding06@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mspaulding06@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Matt Spaulding <mspaulding06@xxxxxxxxx> --- Below is my package review. Please correct items listed under "Issues" and that should be good. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [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] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: Fedora 17 and Rawhide on x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{_tmppath} fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{name} fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{version} fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{release} fourterm.spec:13: W: macro-in-comment %{__id_u} fourterm.spec:45: W: macro-in-comment %{__rm} fourterm.spec:73: W: macro-in-comment %{__rm} fourterm.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/projects/fourterm/releases/fourterm-1.0.5.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found fourterm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fourterm fourterm.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/fourterm-1.0.5/INSTALL fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{_tmppath} fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{release} fourterm.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{__id_u} fourterm.src:43: W: macro-in-comment %{__rm} fourterm.src:71: W: macro-in-comment %{__rm} fourterm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://lzap.fedorapeople.org/projects/fourterm/releases/fourterm-1.0.5.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is not set. [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv3+ [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. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does not have %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: Fedora 17 and rawhide on x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: x86_64 [x] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. Like you mention, the Requires for libgee and glib2 are not necessary. Please remove them. 2. Debuginfo packages cannot be generated for Vala code. Please disable the debug package with "%global debug_package %{nil}" 3. Remove commented out lines in spec file to get rid of rpmlint warnings. 4. Change the Group in spec file to something that makes more sense. I suggest "User Interface/Desktop", which is what gnome-terminal package uses. 5. The Source URL for upstream tarball does not exist. Can't verify that upstream matches tarball in the srpm. Please fix the URL to point to the upstream tarball. === Final Notes === 1. Man pages are not needed. They don't make sense for this package. -- 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