Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477199 Kevin Kofler <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Kofler <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-23 19:18:07 EDT --- MUST Items: + rpmlint output OK (see comment #4) + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines + spec file name matches base package name + Packaging Guidelines: ! License is listed as GPLv2+, should list "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" because the client library is LGPLv2+, otherwise OK + No known patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + Complies with the FHS + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, BuildRequires, Summary, Description + no non-UTF-8 characters + the only relevant documentation is COPYING, included as %doc + RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used (%cmake_kde4 macro) + debuginfo package is valid + no static libraries nor .la files + no duplicated system libraries + no rpaths + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + no .desktop files needed: the only executable is polkit-kde-authorization and its functionality is available through systemsettings + ... and thus no desktop-file-install needed either + no timestamp-clobbering file commands + _smp_mflags used + scriptlets are valid + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts + complies with all the legal guidelines + COPYING packaged as %doc + source compares identical to export of revision 898968 from upstream SVN + builds on at least one arch (F9 i386 mock) + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + no missing BuildRequires (builds in mock) + no translations, so translation/locale guidelines don't apply + ldconfig correctly called in %post and %postun + package not relocatable + ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories owned by another package) + no duplicate files in %files + permissions correct, defattr used correctly + %clean section present and correct + macros used where possible + no non-code content + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + no %doc files required at runtime + no header files which would need to be in the -devel subpackage + no static libraries, so no -static package needed + no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed + devel symlinks correctly in the -devel subpackage + plugin (KCM) in %{_kde4_libdir}/kde4/ is correctly NOT in a -devel subpackage + -devel package has "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" + no .la files + no .desktop file needed + buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install + all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: + license already included upstream + no translations for description and summary provided by upstream + package builds in mock (F9 i386) + passes basic functionality test (polkit-kde-authorization resp. the KCM look OK, service not tested yet) + scriptlets are sane + no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is irrelevant + no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant + no file dependencies Questions (non-blockers): * Should polkit-kde-authorization appear in the menu as a standalone app or is it enough to have it in systemsettings? (IMHO the latter, but there _is_ a standalone executable provided by upstream.) * Do we really want to ship a -devel package right now when there are no installed headers yet? (Not that it will matter in the long term as a public API is planned.) This package is APPROVED. Please clarify the License tag from "GPLv2+" to "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" before, during or after import. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review