https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301116 Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(ksinny@xxxxxxxxx) | --- Comment #11 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: 46189245b46fa3a53b9f983d6c30130661ad928f v1.3.tar.gz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. BAD specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (ASL 2.0). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. BAD compiler flags are appropriate. OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/ppc64,ppc64le). OK debuginfo package looks complete. BAD rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. BAD no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK headers in devel subpackage. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - do not explicitly compress the man pages, it's done automagically by rpmbuild - you should skip the "rm -rf" in %install, rpmbuild does that automatically - use a verbose build so we can confirm what compiler flags are used, the distro-wide flags from $RPM_OPT_FLAGS/%{optflags} must be used (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags) - rpmlint complains a bit libcxl.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Userland -> User land, User-land, Slanderous libcxl.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US powerpc -> PowerPC libcxl.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cxl -> cl, cal, col libcxl.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt -> text, ext, tit libcxl.ppc64le: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userland -> user land, user-land, slanderous libcxl.ppc64le: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libcxl.so 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. - libcxl.so should be a symlink to the actual library file that contains version info (eg. soname version) in the name, with the symlink in devel subpackage -- 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