https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020839 --- Comment #11 from Branislav Blaškovič <bblaskov@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > I might change the Source0 to > https://github.com/blaskovic/fedora-gooey-karma/archive/%{name}-%{version}. > tar.gz , as that's what the file is actually called once it gets through > github's magic. I would leave it as is. It's creating (after unpacking) fedora-gooey-karma-fedora-gooey-karma-0.1 folder when used with your url. > fedora-gooey-karma.noarch: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/share/fedora-gooey-karma/mainwindow_gui.py > if that script isn't meant to be called directly it should not have > executable permissions; if it is, then it should have a shebang. Fixed. This script should not be executable. $ rpmlint fedora-gooey-karma-0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm fedora-gooey-karma.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fedora-gooey-karma 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint fedora-gooey-karma-0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > Why is the .desktop file marked "OnlyShowIn=GNOME;" ? Is there some reason > it won't work on other desktops? Removed. I recycled that .desktop file from some app which had this. My bad. > The app not having an icon is kinda bad, you could ask if the art team could > provide you with one. I will try to create one or contact somebody with some art-skill. > 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 - this is not done, the > package includes a COPYING file (GPLv3) but it is not packaged. Fixed. It's packaged (via %doc) now. > MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. - see note about python file above Fixed as mentioned above. > SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it > doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. - there > aren't any, as noted by rpmlint. But it probably doesn't make sense to have > one for a simple command/app which probably takes no or few arguments. I can create a simple man page for this. But it's not required in my opinion because this app has 0 arguments. > - spec file mixes $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}, pick one form only. I've picked %{buildroot}. > - %clean section is not needed: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#. > 25clean Removed. > - %defattr is not needed: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#File_Permissions Removed. > Add leading space when using \ : > > desktop-file-install \ > --dir=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications \ > %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/fedora-gooey-karma.desktop Fixed. > - Most of empty lines seems unneeded. I've removed doubled empty lines. > - Summary is cryptic, please improve. Does somebody have some suggestions to make the summary clear? -- 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