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=692537
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2011-04-01 07:05:46 EDT --- REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint emacs-librep-el-0.91.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm librep-* emacs-librep-el.x86_64: W: no-documentation librep.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) embeddable -> embedded librep.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elisp -> lisp, e lisp, Ispell librep.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) embeddable -> embedded librep.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US elisp -> lisp, e lisp, Ispell 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. work ~/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 almost meets the Packaging Guidelines except the following issues:
* Please remove *.la files (from main package - you already removed it from devel) * Missing "Requires: emacs" or "Requires: emacs-filesystem" in emacs-librep. In fact there are lots of packages which are also co-owners of the /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp directory so this issue is not so important.
+ 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 (COPYING), MUST be 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 librep-0.91.1.tar.bz2* e4056cab99a6fe3add11191b36ed88ae07f9735a6241362427972f8756c75497 librep-0.91.1.tar.bz2 e4056cab99a6fe3add11191b36ed88ae07f9735a6241362427972f8756c75497 librep-0.91.1.tar.bz2.1 sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. + The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. + 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. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + 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. + Header files are stored in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The pkgconfig(.pc) files are stored in a -devel package. + The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) is(are) stored in a -devel package.
- The -devel package MUST require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- The package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives (see note above)
0 Not a GUI application.
- One of the sub-packages owns files or directories already owned by other packages (emacs-filesystem). See note above and consider fixing it. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.