https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012337 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is almost silent sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/cajun-jsonapi-devel-2.0.3-1.fc21.ppc.rpm ../SRPMS/cajun-jsonapi-2.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm cajun-jsonapi-devel.ppc: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/cajun-jsonapi-devel/Readme.txt cajun-jsonapi-devel.ppc: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/cajun-jsonapi-devel/ReleaseNotes.txt ^^^ Please convert these files to UTF-8. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 almost meets the Packaging Guidelines. I see few things that should be improved. 1. First of all - this package should be marked as noarch since it doesn't depend on any arch-specific entity. So please remove %define debug_package %{nil} and add the following line instead: BuildArch: noarch 2. Also you may remove unneeded "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" in the %files section. It becomes obsolete since Fedora Core 6 or RHEL 5. + 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. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + 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 NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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). + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So please fix/comment the issues mentioned above and I'll finish it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review