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=616120
Maxim Burgerhout <maxim(a)wzzrd.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |maxim(a)wzzrd.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |maxim(a)wzzrd.com
Flag| |fedora-review?,
| |needinfo?(msuchy(a)redhat.com
| |)
--- Comment #1 from Maxim Burgerhout <maxim(a)wzzrd.com> 2010-07-22 15:51:20 EDT ---
== MUST ==
[x] Run rpmlint on all parts of the package and post output
spacecmd.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/spacecmd
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I agree files in /etc/bash_completion.d should not have %config
[x] Package is named according to Naming Guidelines
[x] Specfile matches %{name}.spec
[x] Package matches Packaging Guidelines
[x] Package license matches Licensing Guidelines
[x] Actual license is in License tag in spec file
[x] License text in %doc if applicable
[x] Spec file is in English
[x] Spec file is legible
[x] MD5 sum of sources match upstream MD5 sum (through Source0)
[x] Must compile on at least *one* major architecture
[-] If package does not compile, it has ExcludeArch for that architecture,
with a bug filed for the architecture the package does not build on
[-] Build-time dependencies are in BuildRequires
[-] Uses %find_lang if appropriate; *not* %{_datadir}/locale/*
[-] Calls ldconfig in %post and %postun if carries libraries
[x] Does not carry copies of system libraries
[x] Doesn't do explicit relocatability
[!] Owns all directories it creates; if it uses a directory it does not create
itself, it should depend on the package that *does* create it
spacecmd should own /etc/bash_completion.d:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_own_f....
%{rhnroot} (/usr/share/rhn) is not owned by any packages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UnownedDirectories#Common_Mistakes
spacecmd should either depend on the package that creates %{rhnroot} or own
it.
[x] Has sane permissions, defattr() in every %files section
[!] Consistently uses macros
According to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_ov...
it is preferred to use %global instead of %define
[x] Contains only code or permissable content
[-] Large documentation goes in -doc package
[-] Header files go in -devel package
[-] static libraries go in -static package
[-] Libaries without a numeric suffix (.so.1.1) mostly go in -devel package
[-] Devel package requires base package like this
[-] All .la libtool archives are removed from the package
[-] GUI apps include a %{name}.desktop file
[x] Does not conflict with other packages in file ownership
[-] Filenames are in UTF-8
=== SHOULD ==
[-] If license text is not in separate file, query upstream to do so
[-] If available, the summary and description in the spec can be in other
languages than English too
[x] Test build in mock
[x] Builds on all architectures
[x] Runs
[x] Scriptlets in spec file must be sane
[-] Subpackages require the base package
[-] .pc files go in -devel, mostly, unless the package is a devel tool, like
gcc
[-] requires packages, not files in packages
[-] Try to have upstream create and add manpages for all binaries
There's a couple of issues with the package at the moment. They're marked with
a [!] above.
There is one bigger issue with the RPM as it is now though and that is the fact
that it does not contain *.pyc and *.pyo files when built in mock or Koji. The
RPM *should* contain those files in order to be able to properly cleaning up
when upgrading or uninstalling. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Files_to_include
--
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.