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=454250 --- Comment #12 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-01 00:19:30 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=315455) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=315455) tangogps.desktop fix MUST Items: xx - rpmlint is unclean on RPM + [rishi@freebook x86_64]$ rpmlint tangogps-0.9.3-2.fc9.x86_64.rpm tangogps.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized tangoGPS is a lightweight and fast mapping application tangogps.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/tangogps.desktop 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [rishi@freebook x86_64]$ + rpmlint is unclean on SRPM [rishi@freebook SRPMS]$ rpmlint tangogps-0.9.3-2.fc9.src.rpm tangogps.src: W: summary-not-capitalized tangoGPS is a lightweight and fast mapping application 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [rishi@freebook SRPMS]$ OK - follows Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines + To work around the rpmlint warnings you could consider borrowing the summary used by Debian (http://packages.debian.org/lenny/tangogps): "GTK+ mapping and GPS application" + Even though Fedora does not use the Group tag, please consider a more suitable value for the sake of perfection. + To preserve timestamps you could consider using: make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - license meets Licensing Guidelines OK - license field meets actual license OK - upstream license file included in %doc OK - spec file uses American English OK - spec file is legible OK - sources match upstream sources OK - package builds successfully OK - ExcludeArch not needed OK - build dependencies correctly listed + The 'BuildRequires: glib2-devel' is redundant since 'BuildRequires: gtk2-devel' will drag it in as well. OK - locales handled properly OK - no shared libraries OK - package is not relocatable OK - file and directory ownership OK - no duplicates in %file OK - file permissions set properly 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 xx - %{name}.desktop file is invalid and not properly installed + The .desktop file does not meet the specification. You can use desktop-file-validate to have a look at the problems. Please consider the attached patch as a fix for these issues. + If the package installs a .desktop file, then desktop-file-install must be run. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files Since upstream does not provide a vendor ID, you should use "fedora" as the value. 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 xx - no translations for description and summary OK - package builds in mock successfully OK - package builds on all supported architectures xx - package will not function as expected + Looking at the GUI, it seems that a GPS daemon is necessary during runtime. Please add 'Requires: gpsd' to take care of this. 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