Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449037 --- Comment #4 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-10 16:54:48 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=313898) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=313898) Patch to fix warnings and deprecated code. MUST Items: xx - rpmlint is unclean on RPM + [rishi@freebook x86_64]$ rpmlint afio-2.5-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/restore afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/gnupg_read afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/pgp_read afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/pgp_write afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script4/tapechange afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script3/gnupg_write afio.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/backup afio.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/afio-2.5/script2/backup /bin/bash [rishi@freebook x86_64]$ OK - follows Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines + Broken Source tag. Use the URL publised by upstream: http://freshmeat.net/redir/afio/144/url_tgz/afio-2.5.tgz + The description should be slightly more verbose than the summary. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description You can consider using the following paragraph from the README file: "Afio makes cpio-format archives. It deals somewhat gracefully with input data corruption. Supports multi-volume archives during interactive operation. Afio can make compressed archives that are much safer than compressed tar or cpio archives. Afio is best used as an `archive engine' in a backup script." + It might be a good idea to add a check stanza and run 'make regtest' and 'make regtest2gb' in it. + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps you should use 'install -p'. + The ANNOUNCE-2.5 file contains useful information. It should be added to %doc in the %files stanza. + The ChangeLog file contains no useful information. It should not be distributed. + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation the INSTALLATION file should not be distributed. + The Dist tag (ie. fc9) should not be a part of the %changelog entry. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines ?? - License field meets actual license + The header in afio.c says: "This software package can also be re-distributed under particular conditions that are _weaker_ than the Perl "Artistic License" combined with the GNU Library General Public License. Redistribution need only satisfy all four license notices below." I am not sure how this might affect the License tag. Need to verify. OK - upstream license file included in %doc + The perl.artistic.license file might need to be distributed. OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible + You might want to split the %doc in multiple lines to achieve the 72/80 character rule. But it is a matter of style and upto you. xx - sources match upstream sources + The MD5SUM does not match. Tarball found in SRPM: 70fd825bd8af83473eb52d140df84cc3 Upstream sources from http://freshmeat.net/redir/afio/144/url_tgz/afio-2.5.tgz: 8c6665e0f875dcd8e1bdb18644b59688 OK - package builds successfully + You could consider using the attached patch to fix warnings and deprecated code. Getting the patch upstream should be the final goal. OK - ExcludeArch not needed OK - build dependencies correctly listed OK - no locales OK - no shared libraries OK - package is not relocatable OK - file and directory ownership OK - no duplicates in %file xx - file permissions set properly + The scripts in %doc should not have their executable bits set. + The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) OK - %clean present OK - macros used consistently OK - contains code and permissable content OK - -doc is not needed OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime OK - no header files OK - no static libraries OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no library files OK - -devel is not needed OK - no libtool archives OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages OK - buildroot correctly prepped OK - all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - upstream provides license text OK - translations for description and summary OK - package builds in mock successfully OK - package builds on all supported architectures OK - package functions as expected OK - scriptlets are not needed OK - subpackages are not needed OK - no pkgconfig files OK - no file dependencies -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review