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=455187 --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-29 08:09:30 EDT --- REVIEW: +/- rpmlint is not silent: [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-pgsql-* erlang-pgsql.ppc: E: no-binary erlang-pgsql.ppc: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-pgsql-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation erlang-pgsql-devel.ppc: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings. [petro@Sulaco SPECS]$ However these messages should be safely ignored. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + 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 package spec file matches the actual license. + File, containing the text of the license, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ svn export -r 691 https://svn.process-one.net/ejabberd-modules/pgsql/trunk erlang-pgsql-0.new A erlang-pgsql-0.new A erlang-pgsql-0.new/Emakefile A erlang-pgsql-0.new/build.bat A erlang-pgsql-0.new/doc A erlang-pgsql-0.new/doc/HOWTO A erlang-pgsql-0.new/doc/short-desc A erlang-pgsql-0.new/INSTALL A erlang-pgsql-0.new/src A erlang-pgsql-0.new/src/pgsql_util.erl A erlang-pgsql-0.new/src/pgsql.erl A erlang-pgsql-0.new/src/pgsql_proto.erl A erlang-pgsql-0.new/src/pgsql_tcp.erl A erlang-pgsql-0.new/EPLICENSE A erlang-pgsql-0.new/build.sh A erlang-pgsql-0.new/ebin Exported revision 691. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ tar xfz erlang-pgsql-0.tar.gz [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ diff -ru erlang-pgsql-0 erlang-pgsql-0.new/ [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (ppc). + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. - The package must own all directories that it creates. You should add %dir %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/pgsql-%{version}/{ebin,src} also + The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. -/+ Header files are in a -devel package. However they're not a header, actually. Not a blocker, anyway. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Consider adding missing directories to %dir (btw, huge amount of already packaged apps does not list every created directory as %dir, so seems that this is not a critical blocker) and this package is APPROVED. -- 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