https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861922 --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue [+] Package meets naming and packaging guidelines [+] Spec file matches base package name. [+] Spec has consistant macro usage. [+] Meets Packaging Guidelines. [+] License [?] License field in spec matches ^^ The copying file is GPLv2, and I see no mention of the GPL+ license anywhere in the source. [+] License file included in package [+] Spec in American English [+] Spec is legible. [+] Sources match upstream md5sum: [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ review-md5check.sh bibutils.spec Getting http://downloads.sourceforge.net/bibutils/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz to /tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 100 436k 100 436k 0 0 424k 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 424k b13a26ae79aabf5fc0007d1bf3a4eeb3 /tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz b13a26ae79aabf5fc0007d1bf3a4eeb3 /home/ankur/rpmbuild/SOURCES/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz removed `/tmp/review/bibutils_4.15_src.tgz' removed directory: `/tmp/review' [+] BuildRequires correct [+] Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. [+] Package is code or permissible content. [+] Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. [+] Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. [+] Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun [+] .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig [+] .so files in -devel subpackage. [+] -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} ^^ An arch specific provides using the %{?_isa} would be better? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequires [+] .la files are removed. [+] Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. [+] Package has no duplicate files in %files. [+] Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. [+] Package owns all the directories it creates. [+] No rpmlint output. ^^ [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/bibutils.spec ./bibutils-4.15-2.fc17.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/bibutils-* ../SPECS/bibutils.spec:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir %{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic ../SPECS/bibutils.spec:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter converts, inter-converts, interconnects bibutils.src:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir %{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec bibutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter converts, inter-converts, interconnects bibutils.src:42: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build ./configure --install-dir %{buildroot}%{_bindir} --install-lib %{buildroot}%{_libdir} --dynamic bibutils.src:42: W: configure-without-libdir-spec -> Not a standard configure file. Looks okay. bibutils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US interconverts -> inter converts, inter-converts, interconnects bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wordbib2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary modsclean bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary biblatex2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2end bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ads bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ris2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2isi bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary endx2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bib2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary med2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2ris bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary end2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2wordbib bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary copac2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary isi2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ebi2xml bibutils.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xml2bib -> Some man pages would be nice, if upstream can provide them bibutils-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libbibutils.so.4.15 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 -> Upstream issue. Please notify upstream bibutils-libs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 29 warnings. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ -> Look okay. Please correct the spelling errors if applicable. [+] final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm [-]qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) == bibutils-4.15-2.fc19.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: tcsh == bibutils-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: bibutils = 4.15-2.fc19 bibutils(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19 Requires: libbibutils.so.4()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) == bibutils-debuginfo-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: bibutils-debuginfo = 4.15-2.fc19 bibutils-debuginfo(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19 Requires: == bibutils-devel-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: bibutils-devel = 4.15-2.fc19 bibutils-devel(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19 pkgconfig(bibutils) = 4.15 Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config bibutils-libs = 4.15-2.fc19 libbibutils.so.4()(64bit) == bibutils-libs-4.15-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm == Provides: bibutils-libs = 4.15-2.fc19 bibutils-libs(x86-64) = 4.15-2.fc19 libbibutils.so.4()(64bit) Requires: /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) [ankur@ankur result]$ ^^ Looks good SHOULD Items: [+] Should build in mock. [+] Should build on all supported archs [+] Should function as described. [+] Should have sane scriptlets. [+] Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. [+] Should have dist tag [+] Should package latest version [+] check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Licence clarification 2. Cosmetic changes (rpmlint and _isa macro usage) Everything else looks good. Almost good to go. Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- 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