Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rpmorphan - rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm packages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244411 ------- Additional Comments From tyler.l.owen@xxxxxxxxx 2007-06-16 22:55 EST ------- This is not an official review as I am not sponsored yet. But I hope it will help. FIX - rpmlint not quiet Source RPM W: rpmorphan summary-not-capitalized rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm packages. W: rpmorphan summary-ended-with-dot rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm packages. Binary RPM rpmlint rpmorphan-1.0-1.fc7.noarch.rpm W: rpmorphan spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/rpmorphan-1.0/test_rpmorphan.pl E: rpmorphan standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin E: rpmorphan zero-length /var/lib/rpmorphan/keep E: rpmorphan standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man1 W: rpmorphan summary-not-capitalized rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm packages. W: rpmorphan summary-ended-with-dot rpmorphan list the orphaned rpm packages. W: rpmorphan doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/rpmorphan-1.0/test_rpmorphan.pl perl(Test::More) FIX - Source0 should be a URL to the upstream source http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-e27982f18a3bfd26b5b6ecbee113d2d8f3f006f2 OK - Mock : Built on F7 (x86) OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. FIX - Spec has consistant macro usage. File section has a mix of macros and no macros. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros for a listing of macros OK - License field in spec matches OK - License is GPL OK - License file is included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources SHOULD match upstream md5sum: 560f78f6efe95a864072de6829bb8e00 rpmorphan-1.0.tar.gz OK - Package has correct buildroot. OK - extras BuildRequires are not redundant. OK - %build and %install stages are correct and work. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. FIX - Package doesn't own any directories that other packages own. RPM tries to own /usr/bin (%dir %{_bindir}) RPM tries to own /usr/share/man/man1 (dir %{_mandir}/man1) ? - Changelog section is correct. I am not sure what the rule actually is, but all the examples and other SPECs I have looked at didn't have the .fc7 as part of the changlog entry Also might consider putting in something other than just 1.0 such as Initial RPM Release, here again I am not sure what the rule is, but everyone seems to use that. OK - Should function as described. OK - Should package latest version Package builds, installs and runs OK in F7 x86 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review