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=456280 Lillian Angel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag| |needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |un.com) --- Comment #7 from Lillian Angel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-28 12:10:59 EDT --- A few things to look at. See items marked with an X. X rpmlint: $ rpmlint /notnfs/langel/rpm/RPMS/noarch/ini4j-* ini4j.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/ini4j 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Can you explain this? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout 1 Packaging Guidelines * 1.1 Naming ok * 1.2 Legal ok. * 1.3 No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries all removed. ok * 1.4 Writing a package from scratch ok * 1.5 Modifying an existing package ok * 1.6 Filesystem Layout ok * 1.7 Use rpmlint see above * 1.8 Changelogs ok * 1.9 Tags ok * 1.10 BuildRoot tag ok * 1.11 Requires ok * 1.12 BuildRequires ok X 1.13 Summary and description Can you take out the line break from the description? Otherwise, ok. * 1.14 Encoding ok X 1.15 Documentation Is there a license file somewhere? I do not see one in the zip. * 1.16 Compiler flags ok * 1.17 Debuginfo packages n/a * 1.18 Exclusion of Static Libraries n/a * 1.19 Duplication of system libraries n/a * 1.20 Beware of Rpath n/a * 1.21 Configuration files n/a * 1.22 Initscripts n/a * 1.23 Desktop files n/a * 1.24 Macros ok * 1.25 Handling Locale Files n/a * 1.26 Timestamps n/a * 1.27 Parallel make n/a * 1.28 Scriptlets requirements n/a * 1.29 Running scriptlets only in certain situations n/a * 1.30 Scriplets are only allowed to write in certain directories n/a * 1.31 Conditional dependencies n/a * 1.32 Build packages with separate user accounts n/a * 1.33 Relocatable packages n/a * 1.34 Code Vs Content ok * 1.35 File and Directory Ownership ok * 1.36 Users and Groups ok * 1.37 Web Applications ok * 1.38 Conflicts ok * 1.39 No External Kernel Modules ok * 1.40 No Files or Directories under /srv ok * 1.41 Application Specific Guidelines ok http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines MUST Items: - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. See above. - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines ok - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines ok - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . ok - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . I see it is ASL 2.0 http://ini4j.sourceforge.net/license.html. This is fine. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. ok X 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 %doc. Is there one? - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. ok - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. ok - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. ok - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. ok - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. ok - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. n/a - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is: ok - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. n/a - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. ok - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. ok - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. ok - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). ok - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . ok - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines . ok - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. ok - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. ok - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. n/a - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. n/a - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). n/a - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. n/a - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} n/a - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. ok - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. ok - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. ok - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. ok - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. ok SHOULD Items: X SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Please do this and add it to the docs. - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. n/a - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. ok - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. ok - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. ok - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. n/a - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. n/a - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. ok - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. n/a -- 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
