[Bug 491892] Review Request: openscap - Set of open source libraries enabling integration of the SCAP line of standards

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=491892





--- Comment #5 from Daniel Kopeček <dkopecek at redhat.com>  2009-03-30 03:56:44 EDT ---
rpmlint output:
 openscap.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/openscap-0.1.3/NEWS
 openscap-python.i386: W: no-documentation
 The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
 documentation files.

 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

# The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ Ok

# The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ Ok

# The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- NOT Ok
 - %doc in the -python subpackage is missing
 - %doc in the -devel subpackage installs the documentation files in docs/
directory (/usr/share/doc/openscap.../docs/) which is redundant. 
 - %doc in the -devel subpackage installs unneeded files: Doxyfile

# The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
# The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license
+ Ok

# 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

# The spec file must be written in American English.
+ Probably ok :]

# The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+ Ok

# The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
+ Ok
 + MD5(UPSTREAM/openscap-0.1.3.tar.gz)= 99afff85b6884fd422013db99cf61f62
 + MD5( SOURCES/openscap-0.1.3.tar.gz)= 99afff85b6884fd422013db99cf61f62

# The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture.
+ Ok
 + dist-f10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1264946
 + dist-f11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1264952

# All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
+ Ok

# 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

# A package must own all directories that it creates.
+ Ok

# A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
+ Ok

# Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
+ Ok

# Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ Ok

# Each package must consistently use macros.
+ Ok

# The package must contain code, or permissable content.
+ Ok

# If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
+ Ok

# Header files must be in a -devel package.
+ Ok

# If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that
end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
+ Ok

# In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ Ok

# Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in
the spec if they are built.
+ Ok

# Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ Ok

# At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
+ Ok

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.