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=815951
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> 2012-04-25 07:42:35 EDT ---
Few notes:
* You may drop %clean section entirely. I believe this package isn't intended
to run on onl EL boxes.
* Unowned directories
** %{_libdir}/weston/
** %{_libdir}/weston/
Either specifically mark them as %dir in the %files section or change %files
section to that
%{_bindir}/weston
%{_bindir}/weston-launch
%{_bindir}/weston-terminal
%{_libdir}/weston/
%{_libexecdir}/weston-*
%{_datadir}/weston/
* I don't like this line
autoreconf -v --install || exit 1
So if autoreconf were fail for whatever reason what would we expect then?
Successful building?
Can you simplify this to "autoreconv -ivf" (notice -f switch)?
* License field is wron. Must be "BSD and CC-BY-SA". The latter is for content.
Otherwise it looks fine for me.
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ rpmlint is not silent but these messages are harmless.
work ~/Desktop: rpmlint weston-*
weston.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wayland -> waylaid, way
land, way-land
weston.src: W: strange-permission make-git-snapshot.sh 0770L
weston.src: W: invalid-url Source0: weston-20120424.tar.bz2
weston.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wayland -> waylaid, way
land, way-land
weston.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weston
weston.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weston-terminal
weston.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary weston-launch
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
work ~/Desktop:
+ 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 meets the Packaging Guidelines except the notes stated above.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
- The License field in the package spec file MUST match the actual license. See
above.
- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package (or for the
part of the package), MUST be included in %doc. Please mark data/COPYRIGHT as
%doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the Source1.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
- The package MUST own all directories that it creates. See my notes above.
+ 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 has an empty %clean section, which is ok but weird a bit.
+ 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 devel-libraries files.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application in a commot sense (no need to have a *.desktop file)
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
So, please, address/explain my notes and I'll finish it.
--
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.