https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110050 Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |klember@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |klember@xxxxxxxxxx Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Fedora review dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm 2022-07-29 $ rpmlint dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.src.rpm \ dnstracer-1.9-1.fc37.x86_64.rpm dnstracer.src: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. dnstracer.x86_64: E: summary-too-long Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. dnstracer.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. dnstracer.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Dnstracer determines where a given Domain Name Server (DNS) gets its information from, and follows the chain of DNS servers back to the servers which know the data. dnstracer.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer dnstracer.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary Dnstracer dnstracer.spec:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 14) dnstracer.x86_64: W: binary-or-shlib-calls-gethostbyname /usr/bin/dnstracer Can you fix the summary so that it's not excessively long? Debian packages often have good summaries and you could maybe copy the text from https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/dnstrace, 'Trace DNS queries to the source' Rpmlint also warns about mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. You could make rpmlint happy by only using one or the other. + OK ! needs attention ! rpmlint warnings above need a bit of work + The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package name. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The license text (LICENSE) is included in %license + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm SHA512 (dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) = e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473 SHA512 (Download/dnstracer-1.9.tar.gz) = e69fe772062ff315ff3148c26df78bd41c75d11dcfa6431f1e9374e6069182bd80826b22dc116011d975838d9527913d46edd78de049edd25e3ac9247d5f3473 + Package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a locale handling + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all the directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application n/a Static libraries should be in -static n/a Development files should be in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a Proper .desktop file handling + Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages + Filenames are valid UTF-8 + Package does not depend on deprecated packages > #%%global debug_package %%{nil} Is this needed? I'd just delete this line if not. > %setup -q > %patch0 -p1 If you want to, you could replace these two lines with %autosetup -p1 ... which in my opinion makes patching packages slightly easier as it removes the need to update %patchX lines when adding/removing patches. > %configure --prefix=%{_prefix} Passing --prefix shouldn't be necessary here because it's already included in %configure macro (see 'rpm -E %configure'). > * Thu Jul 21 2022 jonathanspw <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> - 1.9-1 Maybe use your real name here instead of jonathanspw? Your call really :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110050 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
