https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392950 --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> --- formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below: OK source files match upstream: e0a0c4c73a63c6a8c5281bab9508dc634f39925a qclib-1.2.0.tgz OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK* 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 (BSD). 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/s390x). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK* rpmlint is silent. BAD final provides and requires look sane. OK %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. BAD owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. BAD 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 OK no pkgconfig files. OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. - you can drop the Group tag, it isn't used - Source0 should be in %{name}-%{version}.tgz form - Summary could be simplified a bit to "Library for extraction of system information for Linux on z Systems" - the build is "silent" (no visible compile commands), but seems that upstream not distro CFLAGS are used - rpmlint complains a bit qclib-static.s390x: W: no-documentation qclib.s390x: W: no-documentation qclib.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{name} qclib.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{version} qclib.src:23: W: macro-in-comment %{release} qclib.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 1) qclib-devel.s390x: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib qclib-devel.s390x: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. -> drop the commented out line 23 and fix the mixed tabs and spaces - foo-static is Provided in the static subpackage, should be %{name}-static - the devel package should Require the base package with %{_isa} (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package) - /usr/share/doc/packages/qclib/ is created, but not owned by the doc subpackage - you can drop the scriptlets for the devel subpackage, ldconfig makes sense only for the runtime lib - my personal opinion is that the separate doc subpackage is not needed if the rpm sizes are in low 100kB and can be merged with the devel subpackage - I would add the README as documentation into the base package - the path in the doc package shouldn't contain the "packages" part (debianism in upstream Makefile?) -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx