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=494693 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> 2009-04-09 13:59:00 EDT --- REVIEW: + rpmlint is almost silent: [pe...@sulaco ppc]$ rpmlint gloox-* gloox-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [pe...@sulaco ppc]$ [pe...@sulaco SRPMS]$ rpmlint gloox-* 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [pe...@sulaco SRPMS] + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. However I failed to reproduce exact tarball using instructions in comments (it's a normal situation when creating tarball from SCM directly). [pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ ll gloox-1.0-SVNr4003.tar.bz2* -rw-rw-r-- 1 petro petro 644824 Апр 9 21:41 gloox-1.0-SVNr4003.tar.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 petro petro 621743 Апр 5 12:57 gloox-1.0-SVNr4003.tar.bz2.from_srpm [pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ I suggest you to consider rebasing patches against latest devel tarball ( http://camaya.net/download/gloox-1.0-beta8.tar.bz2 ) instead of fetching whole svn tree. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + No extremely large documentation files + Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. + No static libraries. + The sub-package containing pkgconfig(.pc) files has 'Requires: pkgconfig' directive. + The library file that ends in .so (without suffix) is placed in a -devel package. + The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. So, finally, please consider using http://camaya.net/download/gloox-1.0-beta8.tar.bz2 instead of svn tree (just for simplifying the process of verifying sources) or write few words explaining why it's necessary to use trunk and I'll approve this package. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review