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=733603 --- Comment #9 from Kalpa Welivitigoda <callka...@gmail.com> 2011-09-01 06:14:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > I'll do a review. I'm not a sponsor, so this is informal. > > > FIX - MUST: $ rpmlint sugar-ruler-11-1.fc15.noarch.rpm > sugar-ruler.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Ruler is a simple collection > of measurement tools that are displayed on the screen. > sugar-ruler.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Ruler is a simple collection of > measurement tools that are displayed on the screen. > sugar-ruler.noarch: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities > sugar-ruler.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL > sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/cpp/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo > sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/nah/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo > sugar-ruler.noarch: E: incorrect-locale-subdir > /usr/share/locale/templates/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo > sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/templates/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo > sugar-ruler.noarch: E: invalid-lc-messages-dir > /usr/share/locale/ton/LC_MESSAGES/com.laptop.Ruler.mo > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 3 warnings. > Some ideas: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues > OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines > OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} > OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines > FIX - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines > (GPLv3+) > You must specify a GPL version (see the COPYING file on upstream source) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL > FIX - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license > OK - MUST: license file included in %doc > OK - MUST: spec is in American English > OK - MUST: spec is legible > OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 > OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 > N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an > architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. > OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. > Suggestion: Use a seperate BuildRequires line for each dependency > OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang > N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared > library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default > paths, > must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. > OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries. > N/A - 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. > OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates > OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing > OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) > FIX - MUST: consistently uses macros > Use %{__python} on %install section as well > OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content > N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage > OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application > N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package > N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package > N/A - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package. > N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully > versioned dependency > OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. > N/A - MUST: Package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop > file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section. > OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 > > > SHOULD Items: > OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. > N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. > OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > OK - SHOULD: functions as described. > OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. > N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. > N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg > OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or > /usr/sbin > N/A - SHOULD: package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. > FIX - SHOULD: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf > %{buildroot} > It could be a good idea to add this for compatibility reasons. > > Other items: > OK - latest stable version > OK - SourceURL valid > OK - Compiler flags ok > OK - Debuginfo complete > FIX - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} > Same as above, for the %install section > N/A - SHOULD: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: > pkgconfig'. Thanks for the info. Here are the new files with fixes, Spec URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-ruler/sugar-ruler.spec SRPM URL: http://callkalpa.fedorapeople.org/sugar-ruler/sugar-ruler-11-5.fc15.src.rpm -- 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
