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=507106
--- Comment #6 from Steve Whitehouse <swhiteho(a)redhat.com> 2009-08-14 05:17:17 EDT
---
rpmlint output:
[steve@quoit ~]$ rpmlint ./msp430-libc.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[steve@quoit ~]$ rpmlint ./msp430-libc-0-3.20090726cvs.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Package name: OK
Spec file name: OK
Packaging Guidelines:
Licensing Guidelines: OK
License matches spec file: OK
License not in upstream source: OK (but should request that upstream adds it)
Spec file in US English: OK
Spec file legible: OK
Sources match upstream: OK
Must build on one arch: OK
BuildRequires: OK
Locales: N/A
Dynamic Lib: N/A
Owns all created directories: OK
Files only listed once: OK
File permissions: OK
Consistent Macro use: OK
Contains code and permissible content: OK
Large doc files: OK (there are none)
Nothing in %doc is runtime: OK
Header files must be in a -devel package:
Static libraries must be in a -static package:
- I assume these two only apply if the package is targetted at the installed
platform and that this doesn't apply to cross-libraries & tools. It makes no
sense to separate the headers from the library since both are always required
to make use of this package. It makes no sense to name the library -static when
msp430 only supports static libraries anyway.
pkgconfig: OK (No .pc files included)
Library files with .so suffix: OK (None included)
Must not contain .la files: OK (None included)
GUI Applications: N/A
Must not own files/directories owned by other packages: OK
Install removes build root: OK
Filenames are UTF-8: OK
... and now for the SHOULD items...
--
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.