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=720998
--- Comment #9 from Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com 2011-07-15 14:38:16 EDT --- +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable
MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: No major issues. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: BSD [+] license field matches the actual license. [+] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches (6e182f15bf9bc8ffe95547c1cdd7e7b4) [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F14 x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [+] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [+] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [+] .so in -devel [+] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8
SHOULD: [+] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches [?] package functions as described [+] sane scriptlets [+] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts
Ok, it's not a big deal but the only thing I would change is:
%doc doc
to
%doc doc/*
Right now documentation is going into:
/usr/share/doc/OpenNL-3.2.1/doc
which is redundant...
Let me know what you think!
Richard