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=782456 --- Comment #4 from James Laska <[email protected]> 2012-01-24 14:30:13 EST --- > [ PASS ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the > build produces. The output should be posted in the review.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint) > # rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/kredentials-*rpm > kredentials.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kerberos -> kerosene > kredentials.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kerberos -> kerosene > kredentials.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) kerberos -> kerosene > kredentials.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kerberos -> > kerosene Safe to ignore > kredentials.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0-1 > ['2.0-0.1.pre1.fc16', '2.0-0.1.pre1'] Ah, this would be nice to fix. Looks like the first %changelog entry uses the old version/release format > kredentials.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kredentials > kredentials.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs > /usr/share/doc/kredentials-2.0/INSTALL > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Safe to ignore > [ PASS ] MUST: The package must be named according to the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Looks good > [ PASS ] MUST: The upstream project URL should be > http://freecode.com/projects/kredentials Fixed > [ PASS ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the > license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of > the > license(s) for the package must be included in > <code>%doc</code>.(refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License > Text) The %doc files look good. > [ WARN ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in > <code>BuildRequires</code>, except for any that are listed in the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 > section of the > Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as > <code>BuildRequires</code> is > optional. Apply common sense. Apologies, I missed this previously ... looks like you'll need to add "BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils" (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage) > [ WARN ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. (refer to > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros) Nice, looks like consistent use around $RPM_BUILD_ROOT I've added a small patch to consistently use some of the other %build macros. Feel free to take it or toss it ... entirely optional. > [ PASS ] MUST: The upstream project URL should be > http://freecode.com/projects/kredentials Looks good. > Other nit ... You might consider calling out files (instead of using globs) in > your %files. Moreso for the _bindir stuff. Just a thought Looks good, thanks. So just a few minor adjustments, and I think you'll be in good shape. -- 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
