https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=988105
--- Comment #2 from Björn Esser bjoern.es...@gmail.com ---
Package has some (patialy severe) issues. :( See report below. Since you are
new to pkging rpms I suggest doing a step-by-step run here.
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
--- `Requires: perl-DBD-Sybase` would be correct, I suppose
- Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
--- use one or the other, don't mix
- Since you want to package for el5, too, I assume, you should add the
following stuff:
* Group: (pick a suitable from /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.11.1/GROUPS)
* %install
%{?el5:rm -rf %{buildroot}}
* %clean
%{?el5:rm -rf %{buildroot}}
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
--- see later explanation
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: 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 is included in %doc.
--- add COPYING to %doc
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Unknown or generated. 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/988105-check-mssql-
health/licensecheck.txt
--- License-tag is fine
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
--- as explained above
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
--- package doesn't build binaries, so you should turn off debuginfo by
adding `%global debug_package %{nil}` at the top of the spec-file
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include
