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=226204 Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla <limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-05 08:42:40 EDT --- Now it works. rpmlint on SRPM: nss.src:131: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/pkgconfig $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. nss.src:138: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/nss.pc $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. nss.src:148: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{__mkdir_p} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. nss.src:156: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/nss-config $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. nss.src:158: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build chmod 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/nss-config $RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will break short circuiting. Fix if possible. nss.src: E: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install You should clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %clean section and just after the beginning of %install section. Use "rm -Rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". Definitely fix. rpmlint on RPMS: nss.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. nss.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/prelink.conf.d/nss-prelink.conf A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file. nss.i386: E: invalid-soname /lib/libnsspem.so libnsspem.so The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or lib<libname>-<major>.so. nss.i386: E: invalid-soname /lib/libnssckbi.so libnssckbi.so The soname of the library is neither of the form lib<libname>.so.<major> or lib<libname>-<major>.so. nss-debuginfo.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/nss-3.12.2.0/mozilla/security/nss/lib/libpkix/pkix/checker/pkix_policychecker.h ... and many others. FIX. nss-devel.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix if possible. nss-devel.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/libsoftokn3.chk ../../lib/libsoftokn3.chk The relative symbolic link points nowhere. nss-devel.i386: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/libfreebl3.chk ../../lib/libfreebl3.chk The relative symbolic link points nowhere. Fix if possible. nss-pkcs11-devel.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. nss-tools.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. Fix if possible. nss-tools.i386: E: explicit-lib-dependency zlib You must let rpm find the library dependencies by itself. Do not put unneeded explicit Requires: tags. Can't this be dropped? Source0 must include a URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL %clean starts with %{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %install must also. Doing mock build to double-check BRs, but this is probably fine. Summary of full review: buildroot issues, documentation issues, explicit zlib dep, SourceURL issues. Otherwise OK. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review