Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/e00compr.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/e00compr-1.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: ANSI-C library to compress and uncompress Arc/Info Export (E00) files. ---------------- [makerpm@lenovo e00compr]$ rpmlint /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/e00compr-1.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/e00compr-* e00compr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uncompress -> uncompressed, compression, compressor e00compr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uncompress -> uncompressed, compression, compressor e00compr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uncompress -> uncompressed, compression, compressor e00compr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uncompress -> uncompressed, compression, compressor 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3448757
REVIEW: Good: - name ok - group ok - license ok - correct FLAGS used - contains static library (static provides partly ok (see below)) - install ok - %files ok - rpmlint ignorable: $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/e00compr-* ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/e00compr-1.0.1-1.fc15.src.rpm e00compr.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uncompress -> uncompressed, compression, compressor e00compr.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uncompress -> uncompressed, compression, compressor e00compr.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) uncompress -> uncompressed, compression, compressor e00compr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uncompress -> uncompressed, compression, compressor 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. - koji build successfully: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3460389 - source match upstream: 6ab8ceadf8b63357aff88bca2da06355 e00compr-1.0.1.tar.gz Needswork: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release} Why not also provide with %{?_isa}? TODO: It would be great if upstream would provide the test files for the examples so they can be tested in a %check section. (But just a SHOULD here) ########################################################## Change the Provides to: Provides: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} and it's: ########################################################## APPROVED
I've added isa and will ask for tests. Thank you for your quick response. Spec URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/e00compr.spec SRPM URL: http://www.geofrogger.net/review/e00compr-1.0.1-2.fc15.src.rpm
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: e00compr Short Description: Library to compress and uncompress E00 files Owners: volter Branches: f15 f16 el6
Git done (by process-git-requests).
e00compr-1.0.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e00compr-1.0.1-2.fc16
e00compr-1.0.1-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e00compr-1.0.1-2.fc15
e00compr-1.0.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e00compr-1.0.1-2.el6
e00compr-1.0.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
e00compr-1.0.1-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e00compr-1.0.1-3.fc16
e00compr-1.0.1-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e00compr-1.0.1-3.fc15
e00compr-1.0.1-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e00compr-1.0.1-3.el6
> Change the Provides to: > Provides: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} That makes no sense, because you cannot BuildRequires that. Remember, a spec file's BuildRequires become the src.rpm's Requires. And a src.rpm is not arch-specific.
> %package devel > Summary: Development files for %{name} > Group: Development/Libraries > Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} Why does the -devel package require the base package? The base package guidelines don't apply here, because of the contents of this -devel package.
Thank you for noticing the incorrect Provides! I let the devel package require the base package, because it included the license file. I guess I should include a copy in the devel sub-package, if I don't require it: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
> I guess I should include a copy in the devel sub-package, > if I don't require it: Correct. There is no requirement for the -devel subpackage to depend on the base package explicitly. Hence the second part of the guideline applies: | [...] if a subpackage is independent of any base package (it does not | require it, either implicitly or explicitly), it must include copies of | any license texts (as present in the source) which are applicable to | the files contained within the subpackage.
e00compr-1.0.1-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e00compr-1.0.1-4.el6
e00compr-1.0.1-4.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e00compr-1.0.1-4.fc15
e00compr-1.0.1-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/e00compr-1.0.1-4.fc16
e00compr-1.0.1-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
e00compr-1.0.1-4.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
e00compr-1.0.1-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.