https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=785312
Jos de Kloe <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from Jos de Kloe <[email protected]> --- Note for other reviewers: e3 is build from assembly code, there is no c-code in this project. I did not find a specific section in the Fedora Packaging guidelines on how to handle this type of situation. Mark, if you know more examples that have been accepted into Fedora, some pointers might be helpfull in the review process. The package builds 3 rpms on my Fedora17 x86_64 system. rpmlint gives these results: rpmlint e3-2.8-1.fc17.src.rpm e3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pico -> pic, picot, pics e3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nedit -> edit, n edit e3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pico -> pic, picot, pics e3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nedit -> edit, n edit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. rpmlint x86_64/e3-2.8-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pico -> pic, picot, pics e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nedit -> edit, n edit e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pico -> pic, picot, pics e3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nedit -> edit, n edit e3.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/e3 e3.x86_64: E: missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section /usr/bin/e3 e3.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/e3-2.8/COPYING.GPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 4 warnings. rpmlint e3-debuginfo-2.8-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm e3-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. The spelling errors seem not relevant to me. The "statically-linked-binary" error and "missing-PT_GNU_STACK-section" error may be normal for assembly based executables, but I have no experience on this so cannot judge this. References to other similar cases may be usefull here. The incorrect fsf address should be checked and reported upstream if needed. The empty debug rpm should probably be disabled. See the remarks here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Debuginfo_packages Some remarks on the spec file: The BuildRoot is not used by the Fedora rpmbuild and will be ignored. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag so it should probably be removed. The install steps and creation of symlinks should be reported upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
