https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052393 --- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is not silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint beignet-* beignet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementaion -> implementation, implementable, supplementation beignet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bsically -> basically, classically ^^^ This time these are real issues. Please fix typos. beignet.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} beignet.src:46: W: macro-in-comment %setup beignet.src:46: W: macro-in-comment %{version} ^^^ I don't see these as a blockers. Just fyi - this can be silenced by escaping them with additional "%" sign (e.g. %%{version}, %%{setup}). beignet.src:63: W: deprecated-grep [u'egrep'] ^^^ Looks like false positive. beignet.src:67: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/beignet/ ^^^ I'm afraid that's a blocker. This shold go into %{_libdir}/beignet/ . As for rpath it's ok since it falls into "Rpath for Internal Libraries" case: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rpath_for_Internal_Libraries beignet.src: W: invalid-url Source0: beignet-e427b3e.tar.gz ^^^ That's ok for SCM snapshots. beignet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementaion -> implementation, implementable, supplementation beignet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bsically -> basically, classically ^^^ See my notes above. beignet.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-3.e427b3e ['0.3-4.e427b3e.fc21', '0.3-4.e427b3e'] ^^^ Please fix %changelog entry. beignet.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/OpenCL/vendors/intel-beignet.icd ^^^ That's intentional. This file shouldn't be edited by users. beignet.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/beignet/ocl_stdlib.h ^^^ I don't fully realize OpenCL development workflow, but maybe it's better to move these bits into the devel part? I mostly concerned about these files: /usr/lib/beignet/ocl_stdlib.h /usr/lib/beignet/ocl_stdlib.h.pch What's the purpose of /usr/lib/beignet/beignet.bc btw? Is this an OpenCL core or something like that? beignet-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US implementaion -> implementation, implementable, supplementation ^^^ See my notes above. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + 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 (LGPLv2 or later) + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. - The spec file must be written in American English w/o grammar errors. See my notes regarging rpmling issues above. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 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. +/- Almost all header files are stored in a -devel package. See my note about the only C header which is stored in the main package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so) in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + 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. Please fix/comment my notes and I'll finish this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. 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