https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1012337
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is almost silent
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint
../RPMS/ppc/cajun-jsonapi-devel-2.0.3-1.fc21.ppc.rpm
../SRPMS/cajun-jsonapi-2.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm
cajun-jsonapi-devel.ppc: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/cajun-jsonapi-devel/Readme.txt
cajun-jsonapi-devel.ppc: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/cajun-jsonapi-devel/ReleaseNotes.txt
^^^ Please convert these files to UTF-8.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+/- The package almost meets the Packaging Guidelines. I see few things that
should be improved.
1. First of all - this package should be marked as noarch since it doesn't
depend on any arch-specific entity. So please remove
%define debug_package %{nil}
and add the following line instead:
BuildArch: noarch
2. Also you may remove unneeded "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" in the %files
section. It becomes obsolete since Fedora Core 6 or RHEL 5.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
So please fix/comment the issues mentioned above and I'll finish it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component