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=797694
Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |notting@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com 2012-02-28 14:00:57 EST --- - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - LGPLv2+ - License field in spec matches - OK - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK 1b10c6f735f05b5c6f77753036daa3940de8284b farstream-0.1.1.tar.gz
- Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A - BuildRequires correct - OK (it builds, at least) - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK - -devel package Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} - ***
Need %{?_isa} appended.
- .la files are removed. - OK
- Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - tested x86_64 OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK - No rpmlint output.
farstream.src:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6, tab: line 23) farstream-python.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/farstream.so farstream.so()(64bit) farstream-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Fixing the first (mixed spaces & tabs) is nice. The others are ignoreable.
- final provides and requires are sane - OK, looks good.
SHOULD Items:
- Should build in mock. - tested x86_64 on F16 - Should function as described. - didn't test - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - see above - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - OK
Issues:
1. spec has: --with-package-origin='http://download.fedora.redhat.com/fedora' \ You want download.fedoraproject.org. d.f.r.c is no more. 2. Need %{?_isa} appended to %{name} in -devel package requirements 3. Spaces & tabs mixed in the spec file.