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: BkChem - Chemical drawing program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452413 ------- Additional Comments From terjeros@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-25 15:56 EST ------- [ x=ok -=dont't apply !=please fix ?=may fix ] MUST [!] rpmlint must be run on every package a) bkchem.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 10) remove tab in the Group: line b) bkchem.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/bkchem/oasa/setup.py 0644 Is this need at all? Remove in %install [x] package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] spec file name must match the base package %{name} [x] package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [!] [GPLv2] package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license The bkchem/plugins/piddle directory seems to have files with a mix of copyrights, can you check with upstream regarding license of these files? [!] license field in the package spec file must match the actual license See over [x] includes the text of the license(s) in its own file: include in %doc [x] be written in American English [x] spec file for the package be legible [!] sources used to build the package must match the upstream source da8bceec65cf4e054a19c510633b61f4 bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz fa3fc119f06ad0204c5c046b768cabd9 bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz.rpm Remove bkchem.desktop and bkchem.png from tarball, you have to use pristine sources. They are added by source1 and source2, rpmbuild will take care of that. Ask if trouble. Source2 bkchem.png is already in the tarball as images/bkchem.png? [x] compile and build into binary rpms on at least one architecture http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=680857 [-] not successfully compile an architecture: use ExcludeArch [x] all build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [x] spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] shared library files not in any default linker paths: ldconfig [-] relocatable package: the packager must state this fact [x] package must own all directories that it creates [x] not any duplicate files in the %files listing [x] permissions on files must be set properly [x] package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} [!] consistently use macros spec in url is fixed, however not the spec in the src.rpm Bump release when doing updates 13, 19 and 22 has the same release, should be on release 3 now. [x] must contain code, or permissable content [?] large docs should go in a -doc subpackage Maybe split off the doc/ dir in a separate bkchem-doc package? [x] %doc must not affect the runtime of the application [-] header files must be in a -devel package [-] static libraries must be in a -static package [-] containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [-] library files that end in .so: go in a -devel package [-] devel pkg: require base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] no .la libtool archives [!] gui app include a %{name}.desktop file Set vendor to nothing: --vendor="" [x] must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [x] %install includes rm -rf %{buildroot} [x] filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 SHOULD [!] ping upstream about missing license text see above, the piddle subdir. [?] translations if description and summary sections [x] test that the package builds in mock http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=680857 [x] compile and build into binary rpms on all archs http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=680857 [x] package functions as described [!] those scriptlets are sane Just remove the %post/%postun scripts (sorry). [-] subpackages require the base package fully versioned dep [-] pkgconfig(.pc) in devel [-] no explicit file dep outside /etc, /bin/, /sbin, /usr/{sbin,bin} -- 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