Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: html2text - HTML-to-text converter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457213 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-30 20:34 EST ------- NEEDSWORK - rpm lint on binary rpms shows... rpmlint html2text-*.rpm html2text.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/html2text-1.3.2a/README html2text.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL html2text-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. OK - local mock build with Fedora 10 target (yes it's redundant - but it was already running when I decided to do my koji build - I figured why not let it go as a double check on x86_64) OK - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires (koji/mock) would have failed so this is OK. OK?? - The spec file MUST handle locales properly The spec file makes no use of the find_lang. I'm not sure is this is an issue since it does not look like this app supplies localization files for any language OK - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library file ... This package produces NO shared libs OK - If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, NOT stated in review and no mention of /usr in spec file OK - A package must own all directories that it creates OK - A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - Permissions on files must be set properly (rpmls shows appropriate perms) OK - Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or $BUILD_ROOT OK - Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#macros Uses both styles but uses one in the general rpm spec directive context and shell style ex: $BUILD_ROOT in build/install contexts - usage is consistent in each context. OK - The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK - Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage No large doc files in this case OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. Only doc text files are listed as %doc for this package OK - Header files must be in a -devel package. No header files included in binary rpm OK - Static libraries must be in a -static package No libraries of any kind in this package OK - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' None included OK - If a package contains library files with a suffix.... None included OK - In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package... No devel package OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives... No libs produced at all OK - Packages containing GUI applications ... Not a gui app OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Watched install then inspected directories and files ... Also rpmlint will usually complain if this is not the case?---I believe? OK - At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} uses $RPM_BUILD_ROOT style OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. That's all for the MUSTS. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review