https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213596 --- Comment #1 from rj.layco@xxxxxxxxx --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== [x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces [x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption [!] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [x] 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 %license [x] The spec file must be written in American English [x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible [x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL [x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [-] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [x] A package must own all directories that it creates [x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file’s %files listings. [x] Permissions on files must be set properly. [x] Each package must consistently use macros. [x] The package must contain code, or permissible content [-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage [-] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package [-] Development files must be in a -devel package [-] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 [x] Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any packages which have been marked as being deprecated ===== SHOULD items ===== [-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it [!] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock [?] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures [?] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described [-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [-] Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn’t, work with upstream to add them where they make sense Rpmlint ------- rpmlint python-pathable-0.4.3-1.fc37.src.rpm python-pathable.spec -v 21 blocks ================================================ rpmlint session starts ========================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2 =================== packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ============================= -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213596 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202213596%23c1 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
