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=654848 --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> 2010-11-20 04:20:00 EST --- REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint is not silent sulaco ~/Desktop: rpmlint apvlv-* apvlv.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean apvlv.src: W: no-buildroot-tag apvlv.src: W: no-%clean-section ^^^ ok for F-14+ apvlv.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://apvlv.googlecode.com/files/apvlv-0.0.9.8.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found ^^^ false positive apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvParams.cpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvMenu.cpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvFile.cpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvParams.hpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvInfo.hpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/main.cpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvUtil.hpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvCmds.hpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvUtil.cpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvInfo.cpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvMenu.hpp apvlv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/apvlv-0.0.9.8/src/ApvlvFile.hpp ^^^ these messages MUST be fixed. Just add the following line to %prep section: chmod -x src/* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. sulaco ~/Desktop: + 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 license (GPLv2 or later). + 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, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum apvlv-0.0.9.8.tar.gz* adb2ac18e3e75c51b2a5e378d67837b0c15b87e1e3aad05f3501565c4671f902 apvlv-0.0.9.8.tar.gz adb2ac18e3e75c51b2a5e378d67837b0c15b87e1e3aad05f3501565c4671f902 apvlv-0.0.9.8.tar.gz.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji links above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + 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 are set properly (except the issue with sources, mentioned above). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. +/- The typical GUI application should include a %{name}.desktop file, and this file should be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. I'm not insisting absolutely on this, but at least you should advice upstream to add one to the future releases. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, please, unset executable bits from sources, and I'll finish this review. -- 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
