Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: videodog - Command-line video4linux frame-grabber https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189816 ------- Additional Comments From andreas@xxxxxxxxx 2006-04-24 22:13 EST ------- *GOOD* MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW] http://www.ioccc.org/). MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. *NEEDSWORK* MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. *Notes* Please do not use the freshmeat.net urls. URL: should be http://paginas.terra.com.br/informatica/gleicon/video4linux/videodog.html while Source0: should be http://paginas.terra.com.br/informatica/gleicon/video4linux/videodog%{version}.tar.gz Otherwise the package looks fine, change this, and you can consider the package APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.