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=618985 --- Comment #6 from Michal Schmidt <mschm...@redhat.com> 2010-08-02 11:41:08 EDT --- Let's take a look at rpmlint: > $ rpmlint swift-1.0-0.2.beta5.fc13.src.rpm > swift.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install > swift.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean > swift.src: W: no-buildroot-tag > swift.src: W: no-%clean-section > swift.src: W: invalid-url Source0: swift-1.0beta5.tar.gz No actual problem so far. > $ rpmlint swift-1.0-0.2.beta5.fc14.x86_64.rpm > swift.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0-0.2beta5 > ['1.0-0.2.beta5.fc14', '1.0-0.2.beta5'] This points out a real bug. Missing dots in changelog entries' versions. > swift.x86_64: W: no-documentation > swift.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary swift These are real, but not blockers. Formal review according to Review Guidelines: Explanation: [ok] .... the package meets the guideline item [--] .... the guideline item is not relevant for this package [ERR] ... the package fails to meet the guideline and must be fixed. ==================== [ok] rpmlint must be run on every package. [ok] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ok] The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [ERR] License must be Fedora approved; Licensing Guidelines. [ERR] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [ERR] license file must packaged in %doc. The spec says "License: GPLv3+", but the sources appear to be under GPL v3 only (no later version). The tarball contains the text of the license in the "COPYING" file - it should be included as %doc in the binary package. [ok] spec file in American English. [ok] spec legible. [ok] sources must match the upstream source I verified the steps to create the tarball from upstream git resulted in the same files within the tarball. [ok] must compile and build. [--] ExcludeArch if it does not. [ok] complete and sensible BuildRequires [--] handling of locales [--] ldconfig for dynamic libs [ok] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. Bundled libs are correctly removed in %prep. The only remaining directory is DocBook, containing xml files and images. Since they do not end up in the binary and may only influence how documentation is built (and there currently is not any in the binary package), I find it acceptable. It would be nice to find out why it cannot build with DocBook from Fedora though. [--] rules for relocatable packages [ok] directory ownership [ok] no duplicate listing in %files [ok] sane permissions; %defattr(...) [ERR] consistent macro usage The uses both %{buildroot} and ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}. Choose one and stick to it. [ok] code or permissable content [--] large doc [--] header files [--] static libs [--] .so in -devel [--] devel requires base package [--] remove .la files [ok] GUI app must include a %{name}.desktop and use desktop-file-install [ok] no owning of other packages' files/dirs [ok] UTF-8 filenames Formal review according to Packaging Guidelines: [ok] naming [ok] version and release [ERR] Licensing (already mentioned above) [ok] no inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries [ok] spec legibility [ok] arch support [ok] filesystem layout [ERR] changelogs (as already noted by rpmlint) [ok] tags [ok] BuildRoot (not needed, the package is only for Rawhide) [ok] Requires [ok] BuildRequires [ok] summary and description [ok] encoding [ERR] compiler flags I don't see %{optflags} being applied. Koji build log indicates they are not passed (for instance, there's no mention of _FORTIFY_SOURCE). [ok] debuginfo [--] devel packages [--] libraries [ok] no duplication of system libraries [ok] no rpath [--] config files [--] initscripts [ok] desktop files [ok] Icon tag in Desktop Files BTW, a PNG is usually preferred nowadays, but XPM is acceptable. [ERR] macros (inconsistent usage, as already noted) [--] handling locale files [ERR] timestamps swift.xpm is installed without using "-p". [--] parallel make (at least I have no idea how it applies to scons) [--] scriptlets [--] conditional deps [--] relocatable packages [ok] code vs content [ok] file and dir ownership [--] users and groups [--] web apps [ok] no conflicts [ok] no kernel modules [ok] nothing in /srv [ok] no bundling [ok] no fonts bundling [--] patches should have upstream bug link or comment [--] epoch [--] symlinks [--] man pages (always nice to have, but not necessary) -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
