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=741626
Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking(a)uos.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |martin.gieseking(a)uos.de
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |martin.gieseking(a)uos.de
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking(a)uos.de> 2012-01-21 08:52:06
EST ---
I take this one. The package looks good to me -- I just recommend to explicitly
remove cenmass.o in %prep in order to prevent linking this object file.
Also, upstream has released a new version of packmol. Maybe you'd like to
update the package. The license headers are still missing but there's a file
LICENSE present now which refers to GPLv2 only while COPYING still contains the
GPLv3 license text. Upstream should definitely fix this. The license tag GPL+
is nonetheless correct, though.
$ rpmlint *.rpm
packmol.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lamellar -> Carmella,
Mallarme, Marcella
packmol.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
packmol.src:58: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
packmol.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
packmol.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://packmol.googlecode.com/files/packmol-1.1.1.258.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
packmol.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lamellar -> Carmella,
Mallarme, Marcella
packmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary packmol
packmol.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary packmol_solvate
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
The above warnings can safely be ignored:
- macros in comments are expected
- invalid url warning is false positive
- spelling errors are false positive
- no manual pages available for the binaries
---------------------------------
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- GPLv3 license text present
- no copyright information in sources
=> GPL+
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] 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.
$ md5sum packmol-1.1.1.258.tar.gz*
d1b12036b94f48c92595e9c4d3180009 packmol-1.1.1.258.tar.gz
d1b12036b94f48c92595e9c4d3180009 packmol-1.1.1.258.tar.gz.upstream
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+] MUST: When compiling C, C++, or Fortran files, %{optflags} must be applied.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[.] 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.
[.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[.] 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
EPEL <= 5 only:
[+] MUST: The spec file must contain a valid BuildRoot field.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
[.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
[.] 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: Timestamps of files should be preserved.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[.] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.
[X] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
- maybe you can ask upstream to think about adding manpages for the
executables
--
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.