https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062282 --- Comment #7 from Alexandre Beche <alexandre.beche@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, Please find below my informal review (note that it is my first one :) so I may have been too strict or permissive on some points). I think it will answers your two previous comments. If you have doubt on any point, let me know. Cheers, Alex __ = To be corrected OK = Accepted NA = Not Applicable #### # # MUST # #### [__] - rpmlint on source and binary rpm (report enclosed below) rpmlint httpress-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm httpress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weighttp -> weight httpress.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti httpress.src: W: invalid-url Source0: httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz rpmlint httpress-1.1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm httpress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US weighttp -> weight httpress.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti httpress.x86_64: W: no-documentation httpress.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary httpress 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Could you please have a look to the following warning: httpress.src: W: invalid-url Source0: httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz rpmlint -I invalid-url The value should be a valid, public HTTP, HTTPS, or FTP URL. In addition (not mandatory but part of the SHOULD section), is there any chance you to add doc/man page. I know it's probably not meaningful, but warning should go away. [OK] - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK] - The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [__] - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines * Compilation flags does not seems to be correct (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags), I would rather suggest: CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-%optflags}" ; export CFLAGS ; CXXFLAGS="${CXXFLAGS:-%optflags}" ; export CXXFLAGS ; [OK] - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [OK] - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] - 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. [OK] - The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] - The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 86413b065d85b7d9e0af63a205465310853fe67dbfe8d15b92cdbd7fda17a642 httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz (srcrpm) 86413b065d85b7d9e0af63a205465310853fe67dbfe8d15b92cdbd7fda17a642 httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz (https://bitbucket.org/yarosla/httpress/get/httpress-1.1.0.tar.gz) [OK] - The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576209 f21 : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576227 f20 : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6576231 [OK] - If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [OK] - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [NA] - The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [NA] - Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [OK] - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [NA] - If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [NA] - A package must own all directories that it creates. [OK] - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [OK] - Permissions on files must be set properly. [OK] - Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] - The package must contain code, or permissable content [NA] - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [NA] - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [NA] - Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] - Development files must be in a -devel package. [NA] - In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [OK] - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA] - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}. [OK] - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [OK] - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. #### # # SHOULD # #### [__] - If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [NA] - The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [OK] - The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK] - The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [__] - The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Could you please give me an example of how I can run it? [NA] - If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [NA] - Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [NA] - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [NA] - If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [__] - your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. See rpmlint comments -- 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