Spec URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sushi.spec SRPM URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sushi-0.0.3-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This is sushi, a quick previewer for the Nautilus, the GNOME desktop file manager. It is part of gnome 3.2 file previewing feature, https://live.gnome.org/ThreePointOne/Features/FilePreviewing rpmlint output: [elad@elephant result]$ rpmlint *rpm sushi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sushi sushi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
1.The "Group:" tag is needed. 2.AUTHORS,NEWS and TODO are also documentation files,so they should be listed in %doc
(In reply to comment #1) > 1.The "Group:" tag is needed. rpmdev-newspec template didn't have a group tag. Also I didn't see anything about group tag in the packaging guidelines, so please point me to the relevant guideline if such guideline even exist. > 2.AUTHORS,NEWS and TODO are also documentation files,so they should be listed > in %doc Fixed. Spec URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sushi.spec SRPM URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sushi-0.0.3-2.fc16.src.rpm -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Yes, there is no group tag in the rpmdev-newspec template,but if the specfile created by vi, there is a group tag indeed.Every package belongs to a certain group.You can see the example. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#An_example:_eject
(In reply to comment #3) >Every package belongs to a certain group. Non of our utilities (yum, packagekit, anaconda) uses the rpm group tag. I don't think this howto section is up-to-data, and I didn't see anything about it in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines so unless there is a specific guideline that says I must have a group tag, I won't add one. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
ok, maybe someone else knows more about it. In my opinion, it's better to add this tag if it is not must,just my opinion.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > >Every package belongs to a certain group. > Non of our utilities (yum, packagekit, anaconda) uses the rpm group tag. > I don't think this howto section is up-to-data, and I didn't see anything about > it in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines so unless there is a > specific guideline that says I must have a group tag, I won't add one. Just add it already. This isn't really the place to take a stance on packaging guidelines.
sushi.src:71: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc Don't use macros there, it won't work as you expect. Built fine in scratch, rpmlint warnings for the binary packages are pretty bogus: sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgirepository-1.0.so.1 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libffi.so.5 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgjs-dbus.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgjs.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libdbus-1.so.3 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libpthread.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libclutter-gtk-1.0.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libclutter-gst-1.0.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgstbase-0.10.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libjson-glib-1.0.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libGL.so.1 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libdrm.so.2 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXext.so.6 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXdamage.so.1 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXcomposite.so.1 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libXfixes.so.3 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libxml2.so.2 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libwebkitgtk-3.0.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libsoup-2.4.so.1 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libatk-1.0.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libpng12.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libcairo-gobject.so.2 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libfontconfig.so.1 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libgthread-2.0.so.0 sushi.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsushi-1.0.so.0.0.0 /lib64/librt.so.1 sushi.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sushi 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 31 warnings.
Spec file looks mostly correct. > This is %{name}, Remove the use of macros in description fields: > the Nautilus Nope, just nautilus.
(In reply to comment #8) > Spec file looks mostly correct. > > > > This is %{name}, > > Remove the use of macros in description fields: > Ok > > > the Nautilus > Nope, just nautilus. Oops, how did that "the" got there? Oh, It's from upstream README. (In reply to comment #6) > Just add it already. This isn't really the place to take a stance on packaging > guidelines. If you say so. Spec URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sushi.spec SRPM URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sushi-0.0.3-3.fc16.src.rpm -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Updated to latest upstream version: Spec URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sushi.spec SRPM URL: http://elad.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sushi-0.0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Add a period to the description, to make it a sentence. Looks good!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: sushi Short Description: A quick previewer for the Nautilus Owners: elad Branches: InitialCC: -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Built on rawhide. Closing :) -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers