Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Data-Properties/perl-Data-Properties.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Data-Properties/perl-Data-Properties-0.02-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Data-Properties is a Perl version of Java's java.util.Properties and aims to be format-compatible with that class. rpmlint outputs a spelling mistake (false positive) and the package builds in mock.
*** Bug 621559 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[x] package passes [-] not applicable [!] package fails == MUST == [x] rpmlint output $ rpmlint perl-Data-Properties* perl-Data-Properties.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, utile, until perl-Data-Properties.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, utile, until 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. => This can be ignored [x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license [!] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. => cf below [!] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file must be included in %doc => cf below [x] The spec file must be written in American English [x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible [x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL $ sha1sum Data-Properties-0.02.tar.gz 45082b0a2a4e3f9eeaae0cd4838fb9808fea227f Data-Properties-0.02.tar.gz [x] The package '''MUST''' successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [-] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [x] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [x] 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. [x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings [x] Permissions on files must be set properly [x] Each package must consistently use macros [x] The package must contain code, or permissable content [-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage [x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [-] Header files must be in a -devel package [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package [-] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [-] Subpackages requiring the base package [-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built [-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 == SHOULD == [x] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it [-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] 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 [-] 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 == To fix == About the license, you clarified in the spec file that it is ASL 2.0. However, the licensing guidelines say: In such cases, it is acceptable to receive confirmation of licensing via email. A copy of the email, containing full headers, must be included as a source file (marked as %doc) in the package. This file is considered part of the license text. ~http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification Please include the email in the package. This is the only blocker.
(In reply to comment #2) > > Please include the email in the package. Spot, can you send me the email clarifying the license? I'll include it in the package and submit a new version.
Done.
(In reply to comment #4) > > Done. Thank you. Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Data-Properties/perl-Data-Properties.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Data-Properties/perl-Data-Properties-0.02-2.fc15.src.rpm
Note: The spec file linked to in comment 5 is not the same as the one included in the SRPM linked to in the same comment. (it seems like it is still the same as in your original submission, did you forget to reupload it? :) As such, I'm basing this comment on what is included in the SRPM. ----- You clarified the licensing situation to fix the only blocker I raise in comment 2. However, rpmlint now gives the following: $ rpmlint perl-Data-Properties* perl-Data-Properties.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, utile, until perl-Data-Properties.noarch: E: non-readable /usr/share/doc/perl-Data-Properties-0.02/LICENSE 0600L perl-Data-Properties.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, utile, until perl-Data-Properties.src: W: strange-permission LICENSE 0600L perl-Data-Properties.src:30: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR perl-Data-Properties.spec:30: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. The following patch fixes the use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR errors: --- perl-Data-Properties.spec.orig 2011-10-27 10:41:38.706902133 +0800 +++ perl-Data-Properties.spec 2011-10-27 10:43:06.164055615 +0800 @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ %prep %setup -q -n Data-Properties-%{version} -cp %_sourcedir/LICENSE . +cp %{SOURCE1} . %build %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor See also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Improper_use_of_.25_sourcedir As for the non-readable error and the strange-permission warning, you could just run chmod +r on the source LICENSE file (not in the spec, on the actual source file, since you created it yourself anyway).
(In reply to comment #6) > > The following patch fixes the use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR errors: Applied, thanks. Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Data-Properties/perl-Data-Properties.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Data-Properties/perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc15.src.rpm
Everything is fixed, package is approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Data-Properties Short Description: Persistent properties Owners: eseyman Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: perl-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc16
perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc15
perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
perl-Data-Properties-0.02-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.