Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 greg.hellings@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |greg.hellings@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from greg.hellings@xxxxxxxxx --- Now that I'm allowed to do these officially. Items marked + are good, and those marked - have issues. +rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. mingw32-bsdcpio.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdcpio utility mingw32-bsdcpio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive -> lib archive, lib-archive, archive mingw32-bsdcpio.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-bsdtar.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdtar utility mingw32-bsdtar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive -> lib archive, lib-archive, archive mingw32-bsdtar.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI mingw32-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at mingw32-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shar -> share, shear, shard mingw32-libarchive-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw32-libarchive-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-bsdcpio.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdcpio utility mingw64-bsdcpio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive -> lib archive, lib-archive, archive mingw64-bsdcpio.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-bsdtar.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdtar utility mingw64-bsdtar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive -> lib archive, lib-archive, archive mingw64-bsdtar.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI mingw64-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at mingw64-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shar -> share, shear, shard mingw64-libarchive-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-libarchive-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw-libarchive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI mingw-libarchive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at mingw-libarchive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shar -> share, shear, shard mingw-libarchive.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://libarchive.googlecode.com/files/libarchive-3.0.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found It's been suggested to me that summaries for mingw packages begin with the string "MinGW build of...". That will conform better with other MinGW packages and eliminate lots of those warnings. I don't know if the %doc line is necessary for every package or not - but having it there would quiet those warnings as well. +The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . +The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. +The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . +The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . +The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. -If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. !! This is included in each of the base library builds, but not in the binary builds. I'm not sure if that's an issue or not. +The spec file must be written in American English. +The spec file for the package MUST be legible. -The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. !! The URL has changed to distribute off of github.com. The address should now reflect https://github.com/downloads/libarchive/libarchive/libarchive-3.0.4.tar.gz The hashes map between the one you provided and the upstream I linked. +The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. (I tested x86_64 on f17) +If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. +All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. +The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. (n/a)Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. +Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. (n/a) If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. +A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. +A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) +Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. +Each package must consistently use macros. +The package must contain code, or permissable content. +Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). +If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. +Static libraries must be in a -static package. (n/a) Development files must be in a -devel package. (n/a) In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} +Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. +Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. +Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. +All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. So it looks like just a few things: 1) Add "MinGW build.." to the summaries 2) Determine whether the secondary packages need a %doc line 3) Fix the upstream source URL. Lines that begin with 'Group:' are superflous, as Fedora makes no use of them. They can be deleted from your spec file. There are also a few other files that might be potential %doc files that you're not including. For instance, you expressly convert NEWS from Latin1 to UTF-8, but then you don't include it in the %doc line. Why is that? README is also a potential for inclusion, I would suppose. This is my first official review as a packager, so bear with me. Kalev is my mentor, so we can inquire of him regarding anything uncertain. -- 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