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=452413 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx --- Comment #5 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2008-09-29 10:52:54 EDT --- Prereview: [ x=ok -=dont't apply !=please fix ?=may fix ] MUST [!] rpmlint must be run on every package SPECS/bkchem.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 11) bkchem.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/bkchem/oasa/setup.py 0644 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Fix changelog in SPEC file, you have 0.12.2-1 twice. (Why is this not picked up by rpmlint?) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !SRPM spec does not match the one on the website! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Remove the installation script setup.py from the package, it is not needed. [x] package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] spec file name must match the base package %{name} [x] package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [x] Package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license - no plugin anymore [!] license field in the package spec file must match the actual license - The license is GPLv2+ not GPLv2. (lines 298-299 in gpl.txt) [x] includes the text of the license(s) in its own file: include in %doc [x] be written in American English [x] spec file for the package be legible [!] sources used to build the package must match the upstream source da8bceec65cf4e054a19c510633b61f4 bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz fa3fc119f06ad0204c5c046b768cabd9 SOURCES/bkchem-0.12.2.tar.gz - Still need to use original source package and use source1, source2 etc and patches for any modifications. [x] compile and build into binary rpms on at least one architecture - OK on F9 x86_64. [?] not successfully compile an architecture: use ExcludeArch - Not checked [?] all build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - Works for me, mock may be stricter. [x] spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] shared library files not in any default linker paths: ldconfig [-] relocatable package: the packager must state this fact [x] package must own all directories that it creates [x] not any duplicate files in the %files listing [x] permissions on files must be set properly [x] package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} [x] consistently use macros [x] must contain code, or permissable content [!] large docs should go in a -doc subpackage - Doc dir is almost half the size of the whole package, needs to be branched to its own package. [x] %doc must not affect the runtime of the application [-] header files must be in a -devel package [-] static libraries must be in a -static package [-] containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [-] library files that end in .so: go in a -devel package [-] devel pkg: require base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] no .la libtool archives [x] gui app include a %{name}.desktop file [x] must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [x] %install includes rm -rf %{buildroot} [x] filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 -- 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