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=448717 --- Comment #18 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-09 19:38:24 EDT --- Review for 1e1a7230912de6e6b287c3ce7215eac6 gnome-rdp-0.2.3-1.fc10.src.rpm FIX - MUST: # rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/gnome-rdp-0.2.3-1.fc10.* gnome-rdp.i386: E: no-binary gnome-rdp.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib gnome-rdp.src:53: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build nant -D:DESTDIR=%{buildroot} -D:libdir=%{_libdir} 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. The first two errors are because of mono and can be ignored, but the warning needs to be fixed for several reasons: $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{buildroot} should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. DESTDIR is only needed for install, for compiling the package we need to set the prefix. So the correct nant call is nant -D:prefix=%{_prefix} -D:libdir=%{_libdir} OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines FIX - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines, but the included license text and the sources don't match any longer. Text is GLPv3, but the headers still say it's GPLv2+. I guess upstream switched to GPLv3+, but I'd like you to contact them and ask for clarification FIX - MUST: Please change the License field in the package spec file to match the actual license when you really know which one is correct OK - MUST: The source package includes the text of the license and it is correctly included in %doc OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible OK - MUST: The source used to build the package match the upstream source by md5 1297c536e8d84c05113bc744d6829b54 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on Rawhide i386 OK - MUST: The package does not successfully compile on PPC(64), but those architectures are listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, but gnome-desktop-sharp >= 2.20.1 can be removed since you already require gnome-desktop-sharp-devel >= 2.20.1 OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, %files section includes a %defattr(...) line OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: The package contains code, not content OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files in %doc don't affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, which is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section OK - MUST: The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - MUST: rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8 OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described NEEDSWORK, but looks good so far. The only thing that needs to be cleared it the license. Two minor notes: Changelog: If you mention you fixed something "per review" or that you fixed a bug you should also mention the bug #. This is usually done like this: - Fixed comments from Christoph Wickert and Guido Ledermann per review (#448717) ExcludeArch: Please don't forget to open a bug for the excluded archs after the CVS Admin procedure. You only need to write a short description why this package does not build (the one in the spec is enough) and then make the bug block bug # 179260 and bug # 238953. After that you can close the bug CANTFIX, but please add the # to the comment in the spec. For more info please read the corresponding paragraph at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines BTW: The new mono SIG is working on getting the PPC issues fixed, so I hope mono will be available there soon. -- 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