Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

--- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones <>  2009-02-09 
13:17:57 EDT ---
+ rpmlint output

But better to fix the small problem in comment 11.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines

Discussed on fedora-packaging mailing list here:

+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license

This is as far as I got with the review.  There is some
confusing stuff going on with the documentation in this
package.  It should appear in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}
but instead appears directly under /usr/share.

? %doc includes license file
? spec file written in American English
? spec file is legible
? upstream sources match sources in the srpm
? package successfully builds on at least one architecture
? ExcludeArch bugs filed
? BuildRequires list all build dependencies
? %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
? binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
? does not use Prefix: /usr
? package owns all directories it creates
? no duplicate files in %files
? %defattr line
? %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
? consistent use of macros
? package must contain code or permissible content
? large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
? files marked %doc should not affect package
? header files should be in -devel
? static libraries should be in -static
? packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
? must go in -devel
? -devel must require the fully versioned base
? packages should not contain libtool .la files
? packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
? packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
? %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
? filenames must be valid UTF-8


? if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
? translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
? reviewer should build the package in mock
? the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
? review should test the package functions as described
? scriptlets should be sane
? pkgconfig files should go in -devel
? shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to