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 Bruno Cornec <bruno_cornec@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bruno_cornec@xxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Bruno Cornec <bruno_cornec@xxxxxx> 2008-09-08 12:48:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) Sorry was on vacation: > 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 Ok, the afio includes upstream test scripts that have been put as example in the documentation. What is the best approach for this type of beast: 1/ chmod them 2/ put them elswhere 3/ something else ? > 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 Done. > + The description should be slightly more verbose than the summary. Done. > + It might be a good idea to add a check stanza and run 'make regtest' and > 'make regtest2gb' in it. Is it possible to delay it after a first version of the package has been accepted ? > + According to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps you > should use 'install -p'. I don't see exactly the point here. The Makefile provided doesn't use install. > + The ANNOUNCE-2.5 file contains useful information. It should be added to > %doc in the %files stanza. Done. > + The ChangeLog file contains no useful information. It should not be > distributed. Done. > + According to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation the > INSTALLATION file should not be distributed. Well. Why removing information which can be useful ? You may then as well remove PORTING, the lsm file, ... > + The Dist tag (ie. fc9) should not be a part of the %changelog entry. See > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs Ok, will look at that one. > ?? - 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. Added. > 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. Done. > 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 This is due to a tool I use to help me rebuild the package. Will have a look at that as well. > 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. Will do. > xx - file permissions set properly > + The scripts in %doc should not have their executable bits set. Linked to the upper point. > + The preferred attribute definition is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) Done. So as soon as I know what is best for the scripts in doc, I'll rebuild new packages for you to look at. Thanks, Bruno. -- 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