https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487578 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent lemenkov ~/Downloads: rpmlint open62541-0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm open62541-devel-0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm open62541.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^^ Please add some docs to the main package (add the following line: %doc doc/ examples/ AUTHORS FEATURES.md README.md I guess better put doc/ and examples/ and FEATURES.md to devel-subpackage. open62541.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id open62541.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id ^^^ Not sure about this. I guess it's fine. open62541.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libopen62541.so ^^^ see my note above open62541-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ^^ see above. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. lemenkov ~/Downloads: + 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 has few issues preventig it from meeting 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 (MPLv2). - The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be included as %license. Please add the following line to the main %files section: %license LICENSE LICENSE-CC0 The former (LICENSE-CC0) must be placed in the %files section where examples/ are. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum rpm-0.2.tar.gz* d75a0c8703625d768edabe157ed28483e9c54a94c15dd81dba37ecb689601398 rpm-0.2.tar.gz d75a0c8703625d768edabe157ed28483e9c54a94c15dd81dba37ecb689601398 rpm-0.2.tar.gz.1 Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: Tarball's name is misleading. Could you please use %{name}-%{release}.tar.gz instead? (NOT A BLOCKER). + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + 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. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. - The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) must be stored in a -devel package. - The -devel package must require 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. Almost done. Please address my notes and I'll approve it. -- 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
