Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870788
Mario Blättermann <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] | |m Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] | |m Alias| |ros-release Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann <[email protected]> --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4822858 $ rpmlint -i -v * ros-release.src: I: checking ros-release.src: I: checking-url http://www.ros.org (timeout 10 seconds) ros-release.src:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides ros-%{rosrelease}-release The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. ros-release.src: W: no-%prep-section The spec file does not contain a %prep section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality. Add the section, even if empty. ros-release.src: W: no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty. ros-release.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 3) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. ros-release.noarch: I: checking ros-release.noarch: I: checking-url http://www.ros.org (timeout 10 seconds) ros-release.noarch: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ros-release.spec:12: W: unversioned-explicit-provides ros-%{rosrelease}-release The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible. ros-release.spec: W: no-%prep-section The spec file does not contain a %prep section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality. Add the section, even if empty. ros-release.spec: W: no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty. ros-release.spec:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 12, tab: line 3) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. First, add %prep and %build sections, regardless of you need it. For future releases, it would be better to have a source tarball anywhere which can be used instead of creating the package contents on the fly. The mixed use of spaces and tabs is just cosmetic, but I would recommend to use spaces in general. This way, the spec file looks the same in any text editor. Provides: ros-%{rosrelease}-release is somewhat critical. You should add the version number at least: Provides: ros-%{rosrelease}-release-%{version} -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xKrj9av2iY&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
