Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891220 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Summary OK. TODO: Consider writing a bit longer description. MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/nodejs-osenv-0.0.3-2.fc18.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/nodejs-osenv-0.0.3-2.fc18.noarch.rpm nodejs-osenv.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. False positive. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Checked in LICENSE file, BSD. OK MUST: 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. OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ sha256sum ../SOURCES/osenv-0.0.3.tgz aafbb23637b7338c9025f9da336f31f96674d7926c30f209e4d93ce16d5251c4 ../SOURCES/osenv-0.0.3.tgz $ spectool -g nodejs-osenv.spec Getting http://registry.npmjs.org/osenv/-/osenv-0.0.3.tgz to ./osenv-0.0.3.tgz $ sha256sum osenv-0.0.3.tgz aafbb23637b7338c9025f9da336f31f96674d7926c30f209e4d93ce16d5251c4 osenv-0.0.3.tgz OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK MUST: 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. OK, build in mock MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/nodejs-osenv-0.0.3-2.fc18.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 led 13 22:16 /usr/lib/node_modules/osenv drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 led 13 22:16 /usr/lib/node_modules/osenv/node_modules -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2164 čen 18 2012 /usr/lib/node_modules/osenv/osenv.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 606 čen 18 2012 /usr/lib/node_modules/osenv/package.json drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 led 13 22:16 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-osenv-0.0.3 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1318 čen 18 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-osenv-0.0.3/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1468 čen 18 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-osenv-0.0.3/README.md OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. OK Package APPROVED. Please consider solving TODO (better Description). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3dtzb71bAP&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review