https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=950296
Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsl...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsl...@redhat.com> ---
Review done: manual + fedora-review too.
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: reposurgeon-2.39-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
reposurgeon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta
data, meta-data, metatarsi
reposurgeon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hg -> Hg, jg, hf
reposurgeon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bzr -> bar, brr,
bur
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint reposurgeon
reposurgeon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta
data, meta-data, metatarsi
reposurgeon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hg -> Hg, jg, hf
reposurgeon.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bzr -> bar, brr,
bur
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Above warnings can be ignored.
[OK] 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.
[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 .
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[OK] 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
[OK] 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. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this
task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream
URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for
how to deal with this.
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
865a2aec27111d53c2407fddd976dec3578ce0956ba8cca4eb10417cb10f8de4
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
865a2aec27111d53c2407fddd976dec3578ce0956ba8cca4eb10417cb10f8de4
[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[OK] 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.
[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example
[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content
[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
SHOULD
=========
[OK] SHOULD: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[OK] SHOULD: Package functions as described.
[OK] SHOULD: Latest version is packaged.
[OK] SHOULD: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec
file
[OK] SHOULD: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[OK] SHOULD: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[OK] SHOULD: Buildroot is not present
[OK] SHOULD: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[OK] SHOULD: Dist tag is present.
[OK] SHOULD: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[OK] SHOULD: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[OK] SHOULD: SourceX is a working URL.
[OK] SHOULD: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Status: APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bS27z2TRzT&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
