[Bug 552822] Merge Review: perltidy - Tool for indenting and reformatting Perl scripts
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=552822
--- Comment #3 from Matej Cepl <mcepl(a)redhat.com> 2010-01-06 07:35:29 EDT ---
+ GOOD: rpmlint is bradford:rpmbuild$ rpmlint -i
bradford:devel$ rpmlint -i perltidy-20090616-3.fc13.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
bradford:devel$ rpmlint -i noarch/perltidy-20090616-3.fc13.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
bradford:devel$
+ GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Package is long time in the practice so renaming doesn't make much sense (and
the name makes sense).
+ GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
- BAD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Actually it should be GPLv2 only (not GPLv2+ ... cannot find anywhere "or
later").
+ GOOD: COPYING file is in %doc.
+ GOOD: The spec file is written in American English.
+ GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible.
+ GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
MD5: 63baa94a96fc5c272e06e72e589e7673
+ GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
yes, builds on x86_64/F12
+ GOOD: it's noarch so no issues with other architectures.
+ GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. (builds in koji)
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=121809
+ GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
No locale support.
+ GOOD: %post and %postun scripts OK
no scripts
+ GOOD: not relocatable
- UNSURE: A package owns all directories that it creates.
I don't like this in %files:
%{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/
Is this correct? Why not just
%{perl_vendorlib}/Perl/Tidy.pm
+ GOOD: A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ GOOD: Permissions on files are set automatically.
+ GOOD: Each package have a %clean section.
+ GOOD: Each package consistently use macros.
+ GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ GOOD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage.
+ GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ GOOD: No header files.
+ GOOD: No static libraries.
+ GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ GOOD: .so file is provided in -devel package.
no .so file
+ GOOD: Correct Requires in -devel subpackage.
no -devel package
+ GOOD: No .la libtool archives.
+ GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications.
+ GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
+ GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
+ GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
+ GOOD: Includes license text.
Please correct the indicated issues.
--
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.
14 years, 3 months