https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491725 --- Comment #2 from Debarshi Ray <debarshir@xxxxxxxxxx> --- MUST items ---------- rpmlint output: $ rpmlint tracker-miners-2.0.0-1.fc27.src.rpm tracker-miners.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal tracker-miners.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal tracker-miners.src: E: unknown-key RSA#5dc2a74b (MD5 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint tracker-miners-2.0.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm tracker-miners.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal tracker-miners.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal tracker-miners.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided tracker tracker-miners.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tracker-miners-2.0/libtracker-extract.so tracker-miners.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tracker-miners.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id tracker-miners.x86_64: E: unknown-key RSA#5dc2a74b (MD5 tracker-miners.x86_64: W: one-line-command-in-%postun /sbin/ldconfig 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. $ rpmlint tracker-miners-debuginfo-2.0.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm tracker-miners-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id) tracker-miners-debuginfo.x86_64: E: unknown-key RSA#5dc2a74b (MD5 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint tracker-miners-debugsource-2.0.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm tracker-miners-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation tracker-miners-debugsource.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/tracker-miners-2.0.0-1.fc27.x86_64/src/miners/rss/tracker-miner-rss.h tracker-miners-debugsource.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/src/debug/tracker-miners-2.0.0-1.fc27.x86_64/src/miners/rss/tracker-main.c ... tracker-miners-debugsource.x86_64: E: unknown-key RSA#5dc2a74b (MD5 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 135 warnings. All those look harmless, except this one: tracker-miners.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/tracker-miners-2.0/libtracker-extract.so It should be fixed by: -rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/tracker-2.0/*.so +rm -f %{buildroot}%{_libdir}/tracker-miners-2.0/*.so YES - package follows Naming Guidelines YES - spec file name matches base package %{name} YES - package follows Packaging Guidelines YES - package is under a Fedora approved license YES - license field matches actual license I wonder if it should be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ because the binaries are generated from a mix of both. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario YES - source package includes license text, which is included in %license YES - spec file written in American English YES - spec file is legible YES - sources match upstream source YES - package compiles on all primary architectures YES - there is no need for ExcludeArch YES - all build dependencies in BuildRequires Pedantically speaking it should also mention pkgconfig(tracker-sparql-2.0) >= %{tracker_version} but it is unlikely to make a difference in reality. YES - handles locales properly YES - no need for ldconfig There is no need to call /sbin/ldconfig in %post and %postun because it doesn't install shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths. YES - doesn't bundle system libraries YES - package is not relocatable YES - package owns all directories that it creates YES - files are listed only once in %files YES - file permissions are set properly YES - consistent use of macros YES - package contains code or permissible content YES - no need for doc subpackage YES - no chance of items marked as %doc affecting runtime YES - no static libraries YES - no need for devel subpackage YES - devel subpackage requires base package There is no devel subpackage, but tracker-miners requires tracker using a loose dependency YES - package removes all libtool archives YES - package doesn't need a .desktop file YES - doesn't own files or directories owned by other packages YES - all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items ------------ YES - package includes license text from upstream NO - description and summary doesn't have translations YES - package builds in Koji YES - builds on all primary architectures YES - package functions as described YES - package doesn't use scriptlets YES - no subpackages YES - no pkgconfig files YES - no file dependencies outside of /etc/, /bin/, /sbin, etc. YES - contains man pages -- 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
