https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1052393 --- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #5) > 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. Fixed. > 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}). Unlike for me. > beignet.src:63: W: deprecated-grep [u'egrep'] > > ^^^ Looks like false positive. Really weird. > 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 I've tried to change buildsystem to use libdir, but package isn't useful. Anyway we can't onetime use x86_64 and i386 packages. But submitted question to upstream. > 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. Fixed. > 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? No. w/o/ this files it doesn't work > 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? yes. > 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. New SPEC: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet.spec New SRPM: http://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/beignet-0.3-5.e427b3e.fc20.src.rpm -- 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