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=517983 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> 2009-08-20 12:43:07 EDT --- REVIEW: - rpmlint is not silent (I added numbering for the sake of simplicity); [pe...@sulaco ~]$ rpmlint rpmbuild/RPMS/ppc/3proxy-* 1. 3proxy.ppc: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/3proxy.cfg 2. 3proxy.ppc: E: script-without-shebang /etc/3proxy.cfg 3. 3proxy.ppc: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/3proxy 4. 3proxy.ppc: W: service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/3proxy 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. [pe...@sulaco ~]$ 1st and 2nd warnings should be fixed - just use 644 as a parameter for "install" utility (seems that this is a typo) when you're installing 3proxy.cfg ( %{SOURCE2} ) 3rd may be omitted, but it's a generally good idea to provide add-on for logrotate in such cases. 4th should be fixed - just replace "# chkconfig: 2345 02 98" with "# chkconfig: - 02 98" (note the dash sign instead of 2345). + 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 licenses. + 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, as provided in the spec URL. [pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum 3proxy-0.6.tgz* fbeec42136598afb7eab212c925501b27855b07281142b2f1bbc97c14c204fde 3proxy-0.6.tgz fbeec42136598afb7eab212c925501b27855b07281142b2f1bbc97c14c204fde 3proxy-0.6.tgz.1 [pe...@sulaco SOURCES]$ - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1617957 Missing BR dos2unix. Please, try to build in koji before submitting Review Requests. +/- Assuming, that you added dos2unix as a BR, the package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1617973 + 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 must be set properly. See my notes, regarding rpmlint messages. + 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 permissible content. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the 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, address issues noted below, and I'll continue. -- 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