https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967620 Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Christopher, Thanks for your reply. Below my review. [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 ------- Checking: edelib-2.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm edelib-devel-2.0-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm edelib-doc-2.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm edelib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib edelib.x86_64: W: no-documentation edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-mk-indextheme edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-catchsegv edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-dbus-introspect edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-script edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-update-font-cache edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-convert-icontheme edelib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation edelib-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/edelib-2.0.0/COPYING edelib-doc.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/edelib-2.0.0/INSTALL 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint edelib-devel edelib-doc edelib edelib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation edelib-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/edelib-2.0.0/COPYING edelib-doc.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/edelib-2.0.0/INSTALL edelib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib OK .ss files are required (comment #6) and non binary. edelib.x86_64: W: no-documentation edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-mk-indextheme edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-catchsegv edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-dbus-introspect edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-script edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-update-font-cache edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-convert-icontheme [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. [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. [5] [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. 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. CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c31bc7e5156424fa7e2fe3e671e7d7d876cbe55f035029ac8569bfc946fc84ae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c31bc7e5156424fa7e2fe3e671e7d7d876cbe55f035029ac8569bfc946fc84ae [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] MUST: 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 [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] MUST: 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) [OK] MUST: 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. [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] SHOULD: Package functions as described. [OK] SHOULD: Latest version is packaged. [OK] SHOULD: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [OK] SHOULD: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [OK] SHOULD: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK] SHOULD: Buildroot is not present [OK] SHOULD: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [OK] SHOULD: Dist tag is present. [OK] SHOULD: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [OK] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [OK] SHOULD: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [OK] SHOULD: SourceX is a working URL. [OK] SHOULD: Spec use %global instead of %define. Suggestions ================= - edelib-doc.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/edelib-2.0.0/INSTALL - If possible fix the above warning. - Work with upstream for the following: edelib.x86_64: W: no-documentation edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-mk-indextheme edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-catchsegv edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-dbus-introspect edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-script edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-update-font-cache edelib.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary edelib-convert-icontheme edelib-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/edelib-2.0.0/COPYING All above suggestions can be worked in parallel of packaging. Please let me know if you need any help. Status: 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=6djxeRyIOH&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review