https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839527 --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is NOT silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint /home/petro/rpmbuild/SRPMS/rtirq-20120505-3.fc18.src.rpm /home/petro/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/rtirq-20120505-3.fc18.noarch.rpm rtirq.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Realtime -> Mealtime, Real time, Real-time rtirq.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time ^^^ False positives. rtirq.src:86: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/udev/rules.d/95-rtirq.rules ^^^ This one is serious. Please use /usr/lib/ instead of %{_libdir} which value depends on a host architecture. rtirq.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Realtime -> Mealtime, Real time, Real-time rtirq.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time ^^^ False positives. rtirq.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ^^^ This should be ignored. It was triggered by the udev-rule (I personally believe that they must be relocated into /usr/share but we can't do much here). rtirq.noarch: W: no-documentation rtirq.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rtirq-udev ^^^ May be ignored. rtirq.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rtirq rtirq.noarch: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/rtirq ^^^ Please explain these ones. Is it intentional that this script is on by default? If yes then it's not a blocker. If no - this must be fixed. rtirq.noarch: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/rtirq ^^^ This message advises you to use /var/lock/subsys and it's a good idea in general. But considering that we will eventually switch to systemd instead I wouldn't invest my time in fixing this. So this may be omitted as well. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + 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 matches the actual license (GPLv2 or later) - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be included in %doc. Please do. + 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 rtirq-20120505.tar.gz* 254371e5bf812fd66668eb06417b48f0739aba36c62abe319a51c24ccbc22cb9 rtirq-20120505.tar.gz 254371e5bf812fd66668eb06417b48f0739aba36c62abe319a51c24ccbc22cb9 rtirq-20120505.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All non-default build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. None actually. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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 has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). This is not required for Fedora anymore - only for EL5 (and maybe for EL6). + 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 header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 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. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). This is not required for Fedora anymore - only for EL5 (and maybe for EL6). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, so - please address issue with %{_libdir} macro (it's not allowed to use it in noarch-packages), mark LICENSE as %doc, explain/fix all other issues mentioned by me, and I'll finish it. And start switching to systemd asap - it's great! :) -- 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