Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879881 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|17 |rawhide --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> --- I'm not sure what's going on in this ticket. It's great if a reviewer reviews an own package, but the comments are difficult to read. Please use a little bit of indentation as in emails. Here are a few comments. Download of the src.rpm failed for unknown reasons, only could view the spec file: > rpmlint output > gst-openmax.spec: W: more-than-one-%changelog-section This warning from rpmlint deserved a comment. Actually, you should comment on everything it says about the package to eliminate false positives. Here, rpmlint is correct. The spec file contains two %changelog sections, which is bad. Create and maintain a single %changelog per spec file. > gst-openmax.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: file:///home/makerpm/gst-openmax-0.2.tar.gz No comment either? Give "rpmlint -i …" a try. Run it on src.rpm and built rpms. No need to run it on the individual spec file. > Summary: Plugin That's very half-hearted. Could it be a little bit more verbose, please? > %description > Plugin that allows communication with OpenMAX IL components. And no mentioning of GStreamer? Odd. > • Source does not use an upstream URL Why not? What did you find in the Packaging Guidelines about this? > BAD: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > • Package only provides libraries ?? Please explain. The spec file places a statically linked build of the plugin file in a -devel package, which is as wrong as it could get. > GOOD: Development files must be in a -devel package. No. There must not be any -devel package for this software. > GOOD: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} > • Development package is created by rpm You misunderstood the guidelines. > GOOD: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must > be removed in the spec if they are built. Why "GOOD"? You did _not_ remove them. > BAD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it > ▪ Not included in spec file Please clarify. Where is the license file? > BAD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should > contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > • summary does not provide a concise description of the package Indeed. How about fixing it then? > BAD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. > A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > • Unable to list codecs per documentation instructions ??? > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/local/lib/gstreamer-0.10 What's this? We don't do anything in /usr/local withing RPM packages. -- 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