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: WebKit - Web content engine library Alias: WebKit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=415211 tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-12-07 07:30 EST ------- MUST: X rpmlint must be silent $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/WebKit-1.0.0-0.2.svn28482.fc8.src.rpm $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/WebKit-gtk-1.0.0-0.2.svn28482.fc8.i386.rpm WebKit-gtk.i386: W: no-documentation $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/WebKit-gtk-devel-1.0.0-0.2.svn28482.fc8.i386.rpm WebKit-gtk-devel.i386: W: no-documentation WebKit-gtk-devel.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/WebKit-qt- WebKit-qt-1.0.0-0.2.svn28482.fc8.i386.rpm WebKit-qt-devel-1.0.0-0.2.svn28482.fc8.i386.rpm $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/WebKit-qt-1.0.0-0.2.svn28482.fc8.i386.rpm WebKit-qt.i386: W: no-documentation $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/WebKit-qt-devel-1.0.0-0.2.svn28482.fc8.i386.rpm WebKit-qt-devel.i386: W: no-documentation $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/WebKit-doc-1.0.0-0.2.svn28482.fc8.i386.rpm $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/WebKit-debuginfo-1.0.0-0.2.svn28482.fc8.i386.rpm W: no-documentation should be ok, because docs is in doc package. E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib, i am not sure what this means. * source match upstream $ sha1sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/WebKit-r28482.tar.bz2 52b8534bff2727ca6cff39ee87d6c41417ec8e1c /home/tim/rpmbuild/SOURCES/WebKit-r28482.tar.bz2 $ sha1sum WebKit-r28482.tar.bz2 52b8534bff2727ca6cff39ee87d6c41417ec8e1c WebKit-r28482.tar.bz2 * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * summary and description fine * correct buildroot * %{?dist} is used * license text included in package and marked with %doc * package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * changelog format fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License used and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X make sure lines are <= 80 characters PROMBLEM : Some lines are longer than 80 chars. * specfile written in American English * doc goes in a -doc sub-package * /sbin/ldconfig used in packages containing libraries. * no rpath. * no a gui app * header files goes into -devel sub-package. * *.so goes into -devel sub-package. * devel package require the base package using a fully versioned dependency * macros used appropriately and consistently * no %makeinstall * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * no locales * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates X %defattrs present ( %defattr(-, root, root, -)) PROBLEM : %defattr(-,root,root,-) is missing in qt & qt-devel %files section. * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 ? package should build in mock - I haven't tried, but should not be a problem -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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