https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967689 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lemenkov@xxxxxxxx | |m) | --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello again, Christopher. Here I am again with my REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable * First of all please add "%global debug_package %{nil}" to the top of the package. This is a typical Erlang shortcoming - an arch-independent data is installed into arch-dependent directory, so you can't mark it as noarch but must disable bogus debuginfo subpackage generation. We (me with my fellow colleague from SUSE community) are working on it. * Please don't try to own the entire %{_libdir}/erlang/lib directory. Claim %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/* instead. There are few mire Erlang-related issues but I don't want to consider them as a blockers. Instead I'll try to address/fix them in the meantime. +/- rpmlint is not silent: sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/tsung-1.5.0-1.fc20.ppc.rpm ../SRPMS/tsung-1.5.0-1.fc20.src.rpm | grep -v incorrect-fsf-address tsung.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti tsung.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior tsung.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnuplot -> gnu plot, gnu-plot, plotting ^^^ False positives. tsung.ppc: E: no-binary tsung.ppc: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ^^^ that's normal for Erlang-related packages (as I explained above due to known shortcomings we have to install noarch data into arch-dependent directory). tsung.ppc: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/tsung/CONTRIBUTORS ^^^ Should be fixed, mostly cosmetic. tsung.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/tsung-recorder.1.gz 1: warning: macro `\"' not defined ^^^ Not sure about the severity of this issue but I'd like to see it fixed as well. tsung.ppc: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/tsung/tsung_plotter/tsung.py 0644L /usr/bin/python ^^^ Explain what's the purpose of this file or just drop shebang. tsung.ppc: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/tsung/examples/jabber_privacy.xml ^^^ Should be fixed (easy to fix). tsung.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/tsplot.1.gz 1: warning: macro `\"' not defined ^^^ See above. I'd like to see it fixed/explained. tsung.ppc: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/tsung/examples/amqp.xml ^^^ Should be fixed (easy to fix). tsung.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti tsung.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US behaviour -> behavior tsung.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gnuplot -> gnu plot, gnu-plot, plotting ^^^ False positives. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 131 errors, 12 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (strict GPLv2). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum tsung-1.5.0.tar.gz* 9af5c1cc5bc064f85c11cbfdff42f4a36fdea53c51a30354d75f553c8c6ee83f tsung-1.5.0.tar.gz 9af5c1cc5bc064f85c11cbfdff42f4a36fdea53c51a30354d75f553c8c6ee83f tsung-1.5.0.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. -/+ The package does bundles copies of system libraries but as I said I'd like to import package as is and deal with these unwanted addons later. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. - The package owns files or directories already owned by other packages (see my note regarding %{_libdir}/erlang/lib above) + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, please address/explain issues mentioned by me and I'll continue. -- 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=Z8oP3aKPte&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review