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=507106
--- Comment #6 from Steve Whitehouse swhiteho@redhat.com 2009-08-14 05:17:17 EDT --- rpmlint output:
[steve@quoit ~]$ rpmlint ./msp430-libc.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[steve@quoit ~]$ rpmlint ./msp430-libc-0-3.20090726cvs.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Package name: OK Spec file name: OK Packaging Guidelines: Licensing Guidelines: OK License matches spec file: OK License not in upstream source: OK (but should request that upstream adds it) Spec file in US English: OK Spec file legible: OK Sources match upstream: OK Must build on one arch: OK BuildRequires: OK Locales: N/A Dynamic Lib: N/A Owns all created directories: OK Files only listed once: OK File permissions: OK Consistent Macro use: OK Contains code and permissible content: OK Large doc files: OK (there are none) Nothing in %doc is runtime: OK
Header files must be in a -devel package: Static libraries must be in a -static package: - I assume these two only apply if the package is targetted at the installed platform and that this doesn't apply to cross-libraries & tools. It makes no sense to separate the headers from the library since both are always required to make use of this package. It makes no sense to name the library -static when msp430 only supports static libraries anyway.
pkgconfig: OK (No .pc files included) Library files with .so suffix: OK (None included) Must not contain .la files: OK (None included) GUI Applications: N/A Must not own files/directories owned by other packages: OK Install removes build root: OK Filenames are UTF-8: OK
... and now for the SHOULD items...