Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901451 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Summary and Description OK. MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm nodejs-amdefine.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: BSD or MIT. 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/amdefine-0.0.4.tgz e4ad6ad9d20f85bd74bdb61483ea4dcf6a546063f13c8ee99bdb99550b5a4d83 ../SOURCES/amdefine-0.0.4.tgz $ spectool -g nodejs-amdefine.spec Getting http://registry.npmjs.org/amdefine/-/amdefine-0.0.4.tgz to ./amdefine-0.0.4.tgz $ sha256sum amdefine-0.0.4.tgz e4ad6ad9d20f85bd74bdb61483ea4dcf6a546063f13c8ee99bdb99550b5a4d83 amdefine-0.0.4.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. OK, builds in mock MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK MUST: 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. 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-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 úno 6 15:02 /usr/lib/node_modules/amdefine -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 9823 říj 15 07:01 /usr/lib/node_modules/amdefine/amdefine.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 627 říj 15 07:01 /usr/lib/node_modules/amdefine/package.json drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 úno 6 15:02 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2821 pro 10 2011 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3950 čen 16 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4/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. -- 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=ipti2WmxPd&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review