From Fedora Project Wiki

< ParagNemade

Revision as of 16:28, 24 May 2008 by Admin (talk | contribs) (1 revision(s))

Common Rpmlint Errors

Author: [Parag Nemade

Revision: 0.3

Initial Draft: Thursday Jul 20, 2006

Last Revised: Saturday Jul 22, 2006

Rpmlint command

I suggest you to first use rpmlint command on SRPM as rpmlint -iv foo-1.0-1.src.rpm

Once you got silent output from rpmlint on source RPM then start building package. Now apply rpmlint on binary rpms as

rpmlint -iv foo-1.0-1.fc5.i386.rpm

For more information on rpmlint you can check man rpmlint also.

Common Errors and Warnings

This page contains various common errors reported by rpmlint command. I have collected following common rpmlint errors from various fedora extras reviews in Bugzilla.


E: foo-package no-binary

The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain any binaries.

Solution:- Then you can add to SPEC file BuildArchitectures: noarch


E: foo-package standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share

This package owns a directory that is part of the standard hierarchy, which can lead to default directory permissions or ownerships being changed to something non-standard.

Solution:- You should not make Systems standard directory's to belong to your package.


W: foo-package non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/

A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file.

Solution:- under %files section you can add %config /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/


W: foo-package summary-ended-with-dot A content management system for foo package.

Summary ends with a dot.

Solution:- Remove period in Summary.


W: foo-package incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.1-1 0.6.1-1..fc6

Your last entry in %changelog contains a version that is not coherent with the current version of your package.

Solution:- Check Last entry under changelog section for version and release tags in SPEC file.


E: foo-package script-without-shellbang /var/www/foo-package/plugins/foo.php

This executable text file does not contain a shebang, thus it cannot be properly executed. Often this is a sign of spurious executable bits for a non-script file, but can also be a case of a missing shebang. To fix this error, find out which case of the above it is, and either remove the executable bits or add the shebang.

Solution:- You forgot to set executable bits on files reported by this error.


E: foo-package wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /var/www/foo-package/plugins/foo.php

This script has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or modification on a non-Unix system. It will prevent its execution.

Solution:- Create files on Linux only. Don't create files on non-Unix environment and add it in package.


E: foo-package version-control-internal-file /var/www/foo-package/CVS/Entries

You have included file(s) internally used by a version control system in the package. Move these files out of the package and rebuild it.

Solution:- CVS directories and anything under them should just be deleted.


E: foo-package zero-length /var/www/foo-package/foo.js

Solution:- These shouldn't be included unless they're required for something.


E: foo-package description-line-too-long

Your description lines must not exceed %d characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

Solution:- Make description lines each of max 80 characters.


W: foo-package non-standard-group Networking/Other

The group specified in your spec file is not valid. To find a valid group, please refer to the distribution + RPM documentation.

Solution:- On FC5, Check /usr/share/doc/rpm-4.4.2/GROUPS for valid group names.


W: foo-package invalid-license GNU General Public License (GPL)

The license you specified is invalid. The valid licenses are:

-GPL                                    -LGPL
-Artistic                               -BSD
-MIT                                    -QPL
-MPL                                    -IBM Public License
-Apache License                         -PHP License
-Public Domain                          -Modified CNRI Open Source License
-zlib License                           -CVW License
-Ricoh Source Code Public License       -Python license
-Vovida Software License                -Sun Internet Standards Source License
-Intel Open Source License              -Jabber Open Source License

if the license is close to an existing one, you can use '<license> style'.

Solution:- License tag in your SPEC file must contains name of license given above.


W: foo-package non-coherent-filename foo-package-0.99-0.Fedora.src.rpm

The file which contains the package should be named <NAME>-<VERSION>-<RELEASE>.<ARCH>.rpm.

Solution:- Your package name must be of form <NAME>-<VERSION>-<RELEASE>.<ARCH>.rpm


W: foo-package strange-permission foo-package.spec 0744

A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

Solution:- Change permissions on SPEC file.


E: foo-package hardcoded-library-path in %{buildroot}/usr/lib/menu/

A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

Solution:- Don't hardcode path in SPEC rather use macros.



Solution:- The init script name should be the same as the package name in lower case.



Solution:- The default runlevel isn't specified in the init script. You need to add a line like the following one in the header of the init script:

2345 are the default runlevels. When installed, the package will be started on runlevel 2, 3, 4 and 5, and stopped for 1 and 6. 04 and 70 are starting order and stopping order. See InitscriptHowto for more information.

More Information on Rpmlint

You can directly see files installed by package rpmlint under [[file:///usr/share/rpmlint rpmlint] . There you will find various python files for different types of package checking e.g.

File Name		Purpose	Abstract class to hold all the derived classes.	check binary files in a binary rpm package.		handle configuration options. To be used from config files.	check the Distribution specificities in a binary rpm package.		check FHS conformity 		test various aspects on files: locations, owner, groups, 		filter the output of rpmlint to allow exceptions. 		checks i18n bugs. 			provide an API to handle a rpm package either by accessing 		main entry point: process options, load the checks and run 	check the presence of a PGP signature. 		verify source package correctness. 		check the spec file of a source rpm. 		Check a package to see if some rpm tags are present 		Verify Zip/Jar file correctness


For more detailed information of some common rpmlint errors refer to


[Rpmlint RT