Spec URL: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/nimrod.spec SRPM URL: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/nimrod-0.8.8-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: A new statically typed, imperative programming language, that supports procedural, object oriented, functional and generic programming styles while remaining simple and efficient. Additional Notes: Tested this on Fedora 12 (x86_64). Let me know if I need to test it on F13 as well. Also ran 'rpmlint' and did not find any major flaws with both the srpm and spec.
Need sponsor.
Let me do a informal Review Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated Rpmlint ========== [imran@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint nimrod.spec ../RPMS/i586/nimrod-0.8.8-1.fc11.i586.rpm ../SRPMS/nimrod-0.8.8-1.fc11.src.rpm nimrod.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.8.8 ['0.8.8-1.fc11', '0.8.8-1'] nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/html/colors.html nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/html/docs.txt nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/html/os.html nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/html/system.html nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/examples/sdlex.nim nimrod.i586: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/examples/filterex.nim stdtmpl nimrod.i586: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/readme.txt 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 105 warnings. Need to be Fixed ================= See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues 1) Please fix the executable permission on doc/ html/ 2) -doc package will be better option here,create a seperate package for doc and examples 3) see the below link to resolve rpmlint issues https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues 4) Add 0.8.8-1 in changelog 5) Description should be divided into line of each < 80 chars 6) gpl.html = LICENSE should be in %doc 7) Get rid of unnecessary # BuildRequires: # % configure === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type:GPLv2 [!] 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. [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. MD5SUM this package :6a254abb08ff87923321f48cabf46038 MD5SUM upstream package:6a254abb08ff87923321f48cabf46038 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [?] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [!] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [?] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [?] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. libs are needed,but in your RPM there isnt any libs [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] 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.
ping
No response to review commentary or pings in half a year; closing.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 971059 ***