Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825557 --- Comment #16 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review of mingw-clucene-2.3.3.4-3.fc17.src.rpm 2012-11-16 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint mingw-clucene-2.3.3.4-3.fc18.src.rpm \ mingw32-clucene \ mingw64-clucene \ mingw32-clucene-debuginfo-2.3.3.4-3.fc18.noarch.rpm \ mingw64-clucene-debuginfo-2.3.3.4-3.fc18.noarch.rpm mingw32-clucene.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C date with Lucene 2.3.2. It contains most of the same functionality as the Java version. mingw32-clucene.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw32-clucene-2.3.3.4/LGPL.license mingw64-clucene.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C date with Lucene 2.3.2. It contains most of the same functionality as the Java version. mingw64-clucene.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw64-clucene-2.3.3.4/LGPL.license mingw-clucene.src: E: description-line-too-long C date with Lucene 2.3.2. It contains most of the same functionality as the Java version. mingw-clucene.src:70: W: setup-not-quiet mingw-clucene.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab: line 5) mingw32-clucene-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-clucene-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 2 warnings. Can you try to address these warnings where it makes sense, to cut down the noise a bit? One warning that is likely to remain is the debuginfo-without-sources: this is just a common warning with all mingw debuginfo packages, nothing wrong with this particular package. The other one you shouldn't directly fix is the incorrect-fsf-address: we aren't supposed to patch license files in downstream packages; instead, if you want to, you can file a ticket with upstream asking if they can update the LGPL.license file in the next release. + The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + 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 spec file matches the actual license + The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding native Fedora package + The package contains the license files (APACHE.license, COPYING, LGPL.license) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 48d647fbd8ef8889e5a7f422c1bfda94 clucene-core-2.3.3.4.tar.gz 48d647fbd8ef8889e5a7f422c1bfda94 Download/clucene-core-2.3.3.4.tar.gz + The package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a locale handling n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun ! Package bundles copies of system libraries I can see copies of boost and zlib in the tarball, under src/ext/. Can you remove these in %prep to make sure the package doesn't use the bundled copies? n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel Not applicable to MinGW packages. n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages must not contain libtool .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8 Some minor nitpicks about the spec file: > Summary: A C++ port of Lucene Most of the mingw packages in Fedora mention mingw in their summary, often starting it with "Summary: MinGW ...". Might be nice to follow this convention here as well. > Group: Development/System The package management tools in Fedora don't make any use of the Group tag, so if you want to, all 3 Group tags here can be removed. > Patch52: mingw-clucene-core-2.3.3.4-fix-threads.patch Can you submit this upstream? > Provides: mingw32-clucene = %{version}-%{release} [...] > Provides: mingw64-clucene = %{version}-%{release} Please remove the these provides, they are now the same as the binary package names. > %setup -n %{_pkg_name}-core-%{version} Should be "%setup -qn ...", like rpmlint noted above. -- 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