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=728649 --- Comment #3 from Martin Gieseking <[email protected]> 2011-08-19 04:27:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > [ BAD ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the > format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. ===> Needs to be > renamed to airrac.spec Right. However, the spec in the srpm is named correctly. It's just the name of the separately linked spec that doesn't satisfy the guidelines. > [ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream > source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this > task. Please always add the checksums (md5sum, sha1sum,...) of both tarballs to your reviews so that we can easily verify their identity. > ===> I could not build rpm from provided srpm using 'mock -r fedora-15-x86_64 > --rebuild airrac-0.1.0-1.fc15.src.rpm' -- seems like problem with tex, sorry > if > it was my bad due to unapproriate usage of mock. You ran mock correctly. ;) The package doesn't build because of the two missing BRs python-devel and zeromq-devel. > [ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except > for > any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; > inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Not OK since BRs are missing, see above. > [ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does > not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. Not OK: %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is unowned. Denis, add "%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/" to the devel package to fix it. > [ BAD ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must > be > removed in the spec if they are built. ===> I am not sure about that, are > there > any .la archives created? If not, consider it as OK. There are no .la files created, so this is OK. > [ BAD ] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a > separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > ===> No license file included. File COPYING is present in the base and doc package (see corresponding %files section) ==> this is OK. > [ BAD ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. ===> doc package doesn't require > the base package. That's OK. Plain doc packages don't have to require the base package as there are useful without it. ============================= $ rpmlint *.rpm 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. --------------------------------- key: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. - LGPLv2+ according to manpages [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [X] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. - missing BRs: python-devel, zeromq-devel [+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [X] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. - %{_datadir}/%{name}/ is unowned [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: If a package contains .so files with a suffix, then .so files without suffix must go in a -devel package. [+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. EPEL <= 5 only: [+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [X] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
