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: ocaml-xml-light - Minimal XML parser and printer for OCaml https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253566 berrange@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(rjones@xxxxxxxxxx) ------- Additional Comments From berrange@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-23 21:14 EST ------- - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. [WARNING] $ rpmlint ocaml-xml-light-2.2.cvs20070817-1.fc8.src.rpm W: ocaml-xml-light invalid-license LGPL Clarify version $ rpmlint ocaml-xml-light-2.2.cvs20070817-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm W: ocaml-xml-light devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/xml-light/xml_parser.cmi W: ocaml-xml-light devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/xml-light/xml_lexer.cmi W: ocaml-xml-light devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/xml-light/xml.cmi W: ocaml-xml-light devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/xml-light/xmlParser.cmi W: ocaml-xml-light devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/xml-light/test.cmi W: ocaml-xml-light devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ocaml/xml-light/dtd.cmi Bogus warnings for OCaml W: ocaml-xml-light invalid-license LGPL Clarify version E: ocaml-xml-light no-binary E: ocaml-xml-light only-non-binary-in-usr-lib Bogus errors for OCaml $ rpmlint ocaml-xml-light-devel-2.2.cvs20070817-1.fc8.x86_64.rpm W: ocaml-xml-light-devel invalid-license LGPL Clarify version - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [OK] - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [OK] - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [OK] - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license [OK] - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [WARNING: Clarify version - LGPL + OCaml Exception] - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [OK] - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [N/A - CVS snapshot] - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [OK x86_64 rawhide] - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [OK] - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [OK] - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [N/A] - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [N/A] - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. [N/A] - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [OK] - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [OK] - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [OK] - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section [OK] - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros [OK] - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. [N/A] - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [N/A] - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [OK] - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [N/A] - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [N/A] - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [N/A] - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [OK] - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [N/A] - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [N/A] - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [OK] - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. [OK] - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] OK, all supplementary guidelines for OCaml at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/OCaml Will approve pending clarification of LGPL version and add OCaml exception note. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review