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=447738 --- Comment #11 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-22 01:12:54 EDT --- MUST Items: xx - rpmlint is unclean on SRPM + [rishi@freebook SRPMS]$ rpmlint libzypp-4.27.24.1-1.fc9.src.rpm libzypp.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 10) 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 + http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/ seems a better choice for the URL tag. + The Source0 tag should have a valid URL pointing to the upstream release tarball. This is an important requirement. In case upstream does not provide any such tarball, the Spec should have a comment above the Source0 tag describing how the sources were obtained to create the package. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL + Could you throw some light on why it is a problem to build the language bindings on Fedora? Is it because of the ruby-rpm breakage in Rawhide? + It is not really necessary to create %{_target_platform}. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/cmake#Specfile_Usage + To preserve timestamps you could consider using: make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot} + You could consider shipping COPYING and TODO as %doc. What about the doc/persistency-concept.txt and Doxygen documentation? + There libzypp package does not own the %{_libdir}/zypp and %{_datadir}/zypp directories, which it should. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories + Since the .desktop file has a MimeType key, and you are installing icons in %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor, you need to use the appropriate scriptlets. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache + Some of the names in this package contain terms (like package-manager) which can be considered too generic. Has this been discussed elsewhere? 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 ?? - sources might not match upstream sources + As noted earlier, please document how the sources were obtained. Place a comment above the Source0 tag for this. xx - package does not build successfully + Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /var/tmp/libzypp-4.27.24.1-1.fc9-root-rishi error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/lib/zypp/zypp-query-pool The tools/registration/CMakeLists.txt file has hard-coded 'lib' as the destination of zypp-query-pool. On 64-bit systems it should be 'lib64'. You could use sed to replace 'lib' with the value of %{_lib}. ?? - ExcludeArch not needed ?? - missing build dependencies + Can not verify because package fails to build. OK - no locales OK - %post and %postun invoke ldconfig OK - package is not relocatable xx - missing dependency on package that creates directory + The libzypp package should have a 'Requires: hicolor-icon-theme', which owns the %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor directory. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership + Similarly, the -devel subpackage should have a 'Requires: cmake'. 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 - header files in -devel OK - no static libraries xx - missing dependency for pkgconfig files + The -devel package should have a 'Requires: pkgconfig' since it provides a .pc file. OK - library files without suffix in -devel OK - -devel requires base package OK - no libtool archives xx - %{name}.desktop file not installed properly + You should use desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if the package installs a .desktop file and add a 'BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages OK - buildroot correctly prepped OK - all file names valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: xx - upstream does not provide license text + It would be nice if upstream could provide the text of the GPLv2 in a separate file. xx - no translations for description and summary xx - package does not build in mock successfully + It needs sat-solver which is not yet in the repository. ?? - package builds on all supported architectures ?? - package functions as expected + Other components of the Zypper stack are needed to verify functionality. xx - scriptlets are missing + As noted above, required scriptlets are missing. OK - subpackages other than -devel are not needed OK - pkgconfig files in -devel 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