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=487148 Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |lemen...@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> 2009-04-23 01:08:22 EDT --- REVIEW: +/- rpmlint is not silent: [pe...@host-12-116 Desktop]$ rpmlint *gearman* gearmand.i586: W: missing-lsb-keyword Default-Stop in /etc/rc.d/init.d/gearmand gearmand.i586: E: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/gearmand gearmand} 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. [pe...@host-12-116 Desktop]$ The first warning may be omitted, hoewer I advice you to suppress it by adding necessary "# Default-Stop:" into init-script. You don't need even to assign some values to it. The second message is false positive and may be simply ignored. + 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. + 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 matches the upstream source. [pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum gearmand-0.3.tar.gz* 6acf8b8ca7087a1264ba2a96d58fcc5d gearmand-0.3.tar.gz 6acf8b8ca7087a1264ba2a96d58fcc5d gearmand-0.3.tar.gz.1 [pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1316249 - The package failed to build on ppc64, due to missing gogle-perftools-devel for this target. So ppc64 architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch, and bug should be filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1316252&name=root.log http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/google-perftools/devel/google-perftools.spec?view=markup - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, but it seems, that there is one missing "Requires: procps" (usage of pgrep in the init-script). + The subpackage which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. - A package must own all directories that it creates. Unfortunately, you missed %{_includedir}/libgearman/ in the %files section of libgearman-devel subpackage. Please add it as %dir. + The package does not list any 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. + Anything, 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'. + The library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + 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. Please fix issues, noted above. -- 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