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=652778
Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com> 2011-02-27 05:37:09 EST
---
+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
+ Sources match upstream md5sum:
- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
- Package has a correct %clean section.
- Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
- Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.
- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
? No rpmlint output.
+ final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =;
rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and
anything provided by glibc.)
[ankur@ankur result]$ review-req-check
== kanotf-fonts-20050515-1.fc16.noarch.rpm ==
Provides:
config(kanotf-fonts) = 20050515-1.fc16
font(kedage)
font(mallige)
kanotf-fonts = 20050515-1.fc16
Requires:
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
config(kanotf-fonts) = 20050515-1.fc16
fontpackages-filesystem
== kanotf-fonts-20050515-1.fc16.src.rpm ==
Provides:
Requires:
fontpackages-devel
SHOULD Items:
+ Should build in mock.
- Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
+ Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)
Issues:
1. rpmlint output:
[ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/kanotf-fonts.spec
kanotf-fonts-20050515-1.fc14.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm
../SPECS/kanotf-fonts.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/brahmi/files/Brahmi%20OpenType%20Fonts/Op...
<urlopen error timed out>
kanotf-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20050515
['20050515-1.fc16', '20050515-1']
kanotf-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/kanotf-fonts-20050515/readme.txt
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
You forgot to add the release tag in the ChangeLog :)
Please do also correct the wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding error.
The rest looks okay. Please make these corrections and I'll approve the package
Ankur
--
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.