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=463744 --- Comment #3 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-01 18:24:42 EDT --- MUST Items: OK - rpmlint is unclean on RPM and SRPM + [rishi@freebook SPECS]$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/screenruler-0.85-1.fc9.src.rpm screenruler.src: E: description-line-too-long on your desktop. It can be used to take both horizontal and vertical measurement 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. [rishi@freebook SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/screenruler-0.85-1.fc9.noarch.rpm screenruler.noarch: E: description-line-too-long on your desktop. It can be used to take both horizontal and vertical measurement 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. [rishi@freebook SPECS]$ OK - follows Naming Guidelines OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines and Ruby Packaging Guidelines + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description lines in the description should not be longer than 80 characters. + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby#Ruby_Packaging_Guidelines each Ruby package must have: Requires(abi): ruby BuildRequires: ruby Is this needed in this case? 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 OK - no locales 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 + While in some places you have used %{_name}, you have also used 'screenruler'. Would be nice if you could use either one of them for the sake of consistency. 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 not needed OK - no libtool archives xx - %{name}.desktop file is invalid + According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop desktop-file-validate must be run on the .desktop file, and it says: [rishi@freebook SPECS]$ desktop-file-validate /usr/share/applications/fedora-screenruler.desktop /usr/share/applications/fedora-screenruler.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated [rishi@freebook SPECS]$ The key "Encoding" is deprecated on all supported versions of Fedora. Please consider removing it. + Has upstream been notified of our .desktop file? 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 OK - package functions as expected OK - scriptlets 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