Bug 500082

rpmlint output is clean.


MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSFIX/OK?
- Changes.txt mentions license was changed to GPLv3, but no source code files contain any mention of any license.
- Please contact upstream to add license headers to source code files.
- Considering that upstream author is active in Debian, he should understand the need for a clearly set license.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A

MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSFIX
- Use INSTALL="install -p" as argument to make install to preserve time stamps in install phase.

MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. N/A
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSFIX
- Add changes.txt to %doc.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK

SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSFIX
- Ask author to add http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt to tarball.

SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

Thanks for the review!

I emailed Russel Coker russel.au on 11 May 2009, and requested that he include a copy of the license in future releases. 

I added the install argument, as well as adding changes.txt (and credits.txt and INSTALL) to docdir. 


SRPM URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/postal-0.70-4.fc10.src.rpm
SPEC URL: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/postal.spec

I wouldn't add INSTALL to %doc since it doesn't contain anything useful for the user of the rpm package. (You do know that you can list multiple files in a %doc line?)

The package has been

APPROVED

I'll strip out INSTALL before it hits CVS. 
Yes I know that I can list multiple files, but as long as there isn't a plethora, one per line makes it a bit more legible to me at least. 
Thanks for the review!

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: postal
Short Description: mail server benchmark
Owners: ke4qqq
Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5
InitialCC:

cvs done.

Push the update to F-10 and close this bug.

*** Bug 448458 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

ping?

This has been built and pushed to stable - sorry for not adding the bug number to bodhi and thus the failure to autoclose