Bug 834552

*** Bug 537640 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

rpmlint finds some problems:

pdfmod.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %3AApps
 -> false warning, not a macro

pdfmod.src:66: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/
 -> not sure how this is to handle

pdfmod.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.1-3 ['0.9.1-2.fc17', '0.9.1-2']
 -> easy fix

pdfmod.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
 -> mono related

pdfmod.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/pdfmod/poppler-sharp.dll.config
 -> remove x bit!?

pdfmod.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pdfmod
 -> ok

and have you asked for this problem upstream?

#stupid dep needed at configuring; maybe an autoconf induced bug?:
BuildRequires:	gcc

(In reply to comment #2) 

> pdfmod.src:66: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/
>  -> not sure how this is to handle

this in a guidelines exception: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono#rpmlint_and_mono_packages

> 
> pdfmod.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.1-3 ['0.9.1-2.fc17',
> '0.9.1-2']
>  -> easy fix

ups

> pdfmod.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
> /usr/lib/pdfmod/poppler-sharp.dll.config
>  -> remove x bit!?

done

Spec URL: http://olea.org/tmp/pdfmod/pdfmod.spec
SRPM URL: http://olea.org/tmp/pdfmod/pdfmod-0.9.1-4.fc17.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #3)
> and have you asked for this problem upstream?
> 
> #stupid dep needed at configuring; maybe an autoconf induced bug?:
> BuildRequires:	gcc

no. I pretended to fix and send the patch but failed with it.

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x]  Rpmlint output:
pdfmod.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found es - OK, no spanish translations on my side
pdfmod.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib - OK, mono caused
pdfmod.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pdfmod - OK, not provided
pdfmod.src:12: W: macro-in-comment %3AApps  - OK, just an uri
pdfmod.src:67: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/%{name}/ - OK, mono caused

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].

[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec.

[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].

[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.

[x]  Buildroot definition is not present

[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4].

[x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

[x]  If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.

[-]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own

[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.

[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
[paul@laptop SOURCES]$ sha256sum pdfmod-0.9.1.tar.gz.package 
4b69d953a3d5b457c82af79a2c098fce345c524ecc72a6ebb926b06bb79949c0  pdfmod-0.9.1.tar.gz.package
[paul@laptop SOURCES]$ sha256sum pdfmod-0.9.1.tar.gz
4b69d953a3d5b457c82af79a2c098fce345c524ecc72a6ebb926b06bb79949c0  pdfmod-0.9.1.tar.gz

[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].

[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other packages for directories it uses.

[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.

[x]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason

[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.

[x]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)

[x]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing)

[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.

[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.

[x]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.

[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

[x]  Package uses %global not %define

[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

=== Final Notes ===
1. I think it would be good to file the bug with gcc, even without a solution.

================
*** APPROVED ***
================

thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: pdfmod
Short Description: A simple application for modifying PDF documents
Owners: olea
Branches: devel f17 f16
InitialCC:


ARGG!

I removed the fedora-review+ tag from palango, silly me!

Paul, please re-set fedora-review, and then Ismael, please re-set fedora-cvs.  Thanks!

Review flag reset.

cvs request

Git done (by process-git-requests).

thanks both :-)