[Bug 680657] Review Request: mpdas - An MPD audioscrobbling client
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Apr 15 18:44:58 UTC 2011
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=680657
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> 2011-04-15 14:44:57 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i *.rpm mpdas.spec
mpdas.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) audioscrobbling -> audiological,
audiocassette, audiovisuals
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
mpdas.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmpd -> libido, limpid,
Librium
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
mpdas.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl,
lib-curl, Liberal
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
mpdas.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) audioscrobbling -> audiological,
audiocassette, audiovisuals
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
mpdas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmpd -> libido, limpid,
Librium
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
mpdas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcurl -> lib curl,
lib-curl, Liberal
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
mpdas.src:15: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-deutsch)
The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all
older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update
problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on
the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible.
mpdas.src:29: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build export CONFIG="%{_sysconfdir}"
PREFIX="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}" MANPREFIX="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}"
CXXFLAGS+="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it may
break short circuit builds.
mpdas.spec:15: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(md5-deutsch)
The specfile contains an unversioned Provides: token, which will match all
older, equal, and newer versions of the provided thing. This may cause update
problems and will make versioned dependencies, obsoletions and conflicts on
the provided thing useless -- make the Provides versioned if possible.
Looks fine according t o
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_exceptions
mpdas.spec:29: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build export CONFIG="%{_sysconfdir}"
PREFIX="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_prefix}" MANPREFIX="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}"
CXXFLAGS+="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it may
break short circuit builds.
False alarm.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK, built on i686
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]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.
License file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
mpdas-0.3.0-2.fc16.src/mpdas-0.3.0.tar.bz2
d9f6e4d3b000d95835f39fb1aa3f4b28 mpdas-0.3.0-2.fc16.src/mpdas-0.3.0.tar.bz2
md5sum mpdas-0.3.0.tar.bz2
d9f6e4d3b000d95835f39fb1aa3f4b28 mpdas-0.3.0.tar.bz2
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on i686.
[+]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.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[NA]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA]MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g.libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must
go in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA]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
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installation is fine. Executable runs fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
APPROVED.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list