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=554530
Dominic Hopf dma...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Dominic Hopf dma...@fedoraproject.org 2010-05-22 09:45:04
EDT ---
$ rpmlint cdf.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint /home/dmaphy/rpmbuild/SRPMS/cdf-0.2-2.fc12.src.rpm
cdf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) df - sf, ff, dd
cdf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df - sf, ff, dd
cdf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customazable - customarily,
customary, customization
cdf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils - utilizes, utilize,
utility
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Translation suggestions:
customazable - customizable
* most of such utils needs some 3rd party libraries,
python interpreter and so on, while cdf written in pure C
-
* Most similar tools need 3rd party libraries, e.g. a python interpreter. cdf
is
written in pure C.
$ rpmlint cdf-0.2-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm cdf-debuginfo-0.2-2.fc12.x86_64.rpm
cdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) df - sf, ff, dd
cdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US df - sf, ff, dd
cdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -
customization, customize, customarily
cdf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils - utilizes, utilize,
utility
cdf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cdf
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
For the wording, see the suggestions above. For the manpage, please contact
upstream.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[x] Specfile name matches %{name}.spec
[x] Package seems to meet Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: Fedora 12/x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: see above
binary RPM: see above
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] License in specfile matches actual License and meets Licensing Guidelines
License: GPLv2+
[x] License file is included in %doc.
[x] Specfile is legible and written in AE
There are some words which get claimed by rpmlint and a spellchecker, but
a dictionary actually told me they are okay.
[x] Sourcefile in the Package is the same as provided in the mentioned Source
SHA1SUM of Source: 5f5d0c1f1003d9ad3c3cbbda1d8159e9fe10768a
[x] Package compiles successfully
[-] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
[-] Specfile handles locales properly
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required
[x] Package owns directorys it creates
[-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not list a file more than once in the %files listing
[x] %files section includes %defattr and permissions are set properly
[x] %clean section is there and contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x] Macros are consistently used
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
[x] Program runs properly without files listed in %doc
[-] Header files are in a -devel package
[-] Static libraries are in a -static package
[-] Package requires pkgconfig if .pc files are present
[-] .so-files are put into a -devel subpackage
[-] Subpackages include fully versioned dependency for the base package
[-] Any libtool archives (*.la) are removed
[-] contains desktop file (%{name}.desktop) if it is a GUI application
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is removed at beginning of %install
[-] Filenames are encoded in UTF-8
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Package contains latest upstream version
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] non-English translations for description and summary
[x] Package builds in mock
Tested on: F12/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
architectures.
tested build with koji
[x] Program runs
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] pkgconfig (*.pc) files are placed in a -devel package
[-] require package providing a file instead of the file itself
no files outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin are required
=== Issues to be point out ===
The make command lacks the %{optflags} macro. I guess this is intended, since
the package does not build with the optflags. You should add at least a
comment,
why you didn't use the optflags macro.
You can use the %{name} macro in
