https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1992 --- Comment #30 from Göran Uddeborg <goeran(a)uddeborg.se&gt; 2012-10-27 21:47:32 CEST --- Alright, here is my review: Keys ==== [+] package passes [0] not applicable [-] package fails Issues ====== - As mentioned in comment 29, the source package does not contain the correct version of the script. - Why do you explicitly install COPYING, and list it with the full path? Why not just do "%doc %SOURCE2" in the %files section, and take advantage of the automatic handling in rpm? - I would probably have considered the rsvg-convert call as part of %build rather than %prep. But it's a matter of taste; if you disagree I won't insist. - The Fedora packaging of Wine uses the category X-Wine. Maybe it would make sense to use it in winetricks too? - Unless I'm mistaken, the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor and subdirectories are not owned by any package required by winetricks, right? Unless I misunderstand the rules (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelin...), that means that winetricks should also own /usr/share/icons/hicolor and children. MUST Items ========== [-] rpmlint output is clean [the script version issue] [+] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [+] The package must meet the Licensing Guidelines. [I.e., it does meet the RPM Fusion rules, but can't be in Fedora itself because of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelin...] [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] The license file must be included in %doc. [+] The spec file must be written in American English. [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [-] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source [+] The package MUST successfully compile and build [0] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [0] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [0] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [0] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [-] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] A package must not list a file more than once [+] Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] Each package must consistently use macros. [+] The package must contain code, or permissable content. [0] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [0] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [0] Development files must be in a -devel package. [0] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [0] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [+] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items ============ [+] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [0] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [?] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [0] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [0] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [0] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [+] Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.