https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847952 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Ok, here is a successful build for Rawhide: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4387581 These are Octave Packaging Guidelines: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Octave And here is my formal REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is noisy: work ~/Desktop: rpmlint octave-nnet-0.1.13-1.fc19.* octave-nnet.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti ^^^ false positive. octave-nnet.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge ^^^ I think it's not required in this case. if someone still requires octave-forge it must be fixed. Also this is exactly how it's done in the Octave Packaging Guildelines. octave-nnet.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/octave/packages/nnet-0.1.13/packinfo/.autoload octave-nnet.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/octave/packages/nnet-0.1.13/packinfo/.autoload ^^^ I'm not familiar with Octave - could you please comment this. octave-nnet.noarch: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/octave/packages/nnet-0.1.13/doc/latex/perl/analyzeOctaveSource.pm perl(File::Find) ^^^ Likewise. Please, comment this. octave-nnet.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm ^^^ Invoked by Octave-related macro so I think it's ok. octave-nnet.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti ^^^ false positive. octave-nnet.src: W: strange-permission nnet-0.1.13.tar.gz 0640L ^^^ Strange, indeed, but harmless. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines and Octave Packaging Guidelines (see link above). + 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, as stated in the DESCRIPTION file). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be included in %doc. It currently installed into %{octpkgdir} so technically it's available within package but this is a MUST requirement so please mark COPYING as %doc in the %files section. + 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 nnet-0.1.13.tar.gz* e1388ea8f56bad0c609e879f2e19432d117111487cc6980ae78bb69cef48e41d nnet-0.1.13.tar.gz e1388ea8f56bad0c609e879f2e19432d117111487cc6980ae78bb69cef48e41d nnet-0.1.13.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. + 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 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). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Please, comment my concerns above and mark COPYING ad %doc and I'll finish 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