https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870049 --- Comment #7 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is NOT silent (1290 warnings!) but almost all of these warnings are about undefined macros in man-pages which isn't that harmful. You should take a look at them and report upstream. The rest of rpmlint messages are listed below: Auriga ~: rpmlint Desktop/motif-* | grep -v manual-page-warning motif.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mwm -> mm, mam, mom ^^^ false positive. motif.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libUil.so.4.0.4 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 ^^^ that's a bad architectural design but it's not a blocker. motif-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ It's not required here. 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1290 warnings. Auriga ~: + 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 (LGPL v2 or later). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + 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. + 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. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 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). + 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. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. + Static libraries are stored in a -static package. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package. - The -devel package MUST require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}. Note the "%{?_isa}" macro. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application (which means that it doesn't add some userspace graphical utilities which requires *.desktop file). - The package can not own files or directories already owned by other packages. I really concerned about * xorg-x11-xbitmaps who is the owner of the /usr/include/X11/bitmaps/ directory * xorg-x11-xinit, owner of the /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc.d/ *If* these packages are picked up automatically by a dependency checker then it's ok. If not - you must add them as a Requires. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Almost done. * Please, fix devel sub-package dependency (requires %{?_isa} macro). * Ensure that xorg-x11-xbitmaps and xorg-x11-xinit are picked up automatically and inserted into dependency chain while installing Motif rpm. Otherwise please add them explicitly. -- 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