https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852778
--- Comment #2 from Tomáš Bžatek <tbzatek(a)redhat.com> ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
rpmlint is clean
except one warning:
clutter-gst2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
This is however explained in the spec file and is actually correct for the
moment. Please don't forget to include documentation when conflicts are
resolved.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines
Ok
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
Ok
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
Ok, the
spec file is pretty formatted and clean
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines
Ok, LGPLv2+
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the
actual license
Ok, licence matches
MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
Ok
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English
Ok
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
Ok
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is
used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for
this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
Ok,
downloaded the source tarball and checked
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture.
Ok, compiles fine on fresh rawhide on
x86-64
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch.
Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the
reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number
MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
Not needed
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion
of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
BRs look sane, suggesting
to add standard tools like libtool and perhaps also
version requirements. It's not needed for the moment given the dependencies are
new major releases with stable API and version requirements are usually added
for further versions as needed.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
No
locales present, this is a library
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
Ok, calls are present
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Ok
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker
Ok, not the case
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.
Ok, seems to be not needed
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the
spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
Ok
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example.
Ok
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
Ok
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
Ok
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted
to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
Ok, not needed
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
Ok
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
Ok, not
present
MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
Ok
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
Ok, the require is present
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.
Ok
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install
in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a
.desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
Ok,
not needed
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should
own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example,
that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories
owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a
file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review
time.
Ok, correct
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Ok
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.