Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=866495 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #15 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is NOT silent. Apart from incorrect-fsf-address messages which are not that critical (however I advise you to update licensing headers) here are few others: work ~/Desktop: rpmlint vzctl-* | grep -v incorrect-fsf-address vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/ve-vswap-1g.conf-sample vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/ve-vswap-1024m.conf-sample vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/ve-vswap-4g.conf-sample vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/ve-basic.conf-sample vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/ve-vswap-512m.conf-sample vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/ve-light.conf-sample vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/ve-unlimited.conf-sample vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/0.conf vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/ve-vswap-256m.conf-sample vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz vzctl-core.x86_64: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/sysconfig/vz-scripts/ve-vswap-2g.conf-sample vzctl-core.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/vz/dists/distribution.conf-template ^^^ see below. vzctl-core.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/vz/private 0700L vzctl-core.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/vz/root 0700L ^^^ I suspect that's a requrement for VZ. vzctl-core.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/vzctl.sh ^^^ see below. vzctl-core.x86_64: E: incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/vzctl ^^^ That's ok. It just warns you that package name doesn't match logrotate's file name. vzctl-core.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/logrotate.d/vzctl vzctl-core.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/vz/dists/default ^^^ see below. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 161 errors, 15 warnings. work ~/Desktop: Regarding non-conffile-in-etc messages. There are two possible scenarios of installing files which are intended to be edited by user. We either can install them as is and mark them as conffiles (in this case RPM won't override them if they already exists) or we can install them as *.template / *.example / *.sample / etc, and require user to create them explicitly using provided ones as an examples. You apparently choose the second option. And that's why rpmlint complaints a lot. + 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 MUST match the actual license. Correct tag is GPLv2+. + 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. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum vzctl-4.1.tar.bz2* a77a9b4db34259ca9ded9d0e869dc8d0a65b2534530a57c79fb284b9745a2f7d vzctl-4.1.tar.bz2 a77a9b4db34259ca9ded9d0e869dc8d0a65b2534530a57c79fb284b9745a2f7d vzctl-4.1.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4690929 + 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 MUST own all directories that it creates. You must claim ownership on the following directories: * %{_vzdir}/template/ * /var/lib/vzctl/ + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. 0 The package DOESN'T have a %clean section, so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). But this package requires a very modern kernels so it won't work on older kernels anyway. + 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 C/C++ header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. 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. 0 At the beginning of %install, the package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) so it won't build cleanly on systems with old rpm (EL-4 and EL-5, not sure about EL-6). The same as with %clean section - it's irrelevant for this case. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So, please, before package uploading and building * correct License tag * claim ownership on two additional libraries Apart of that I don't see any other issues so this package is APPROVED. -- 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