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=478655 Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-02 19:53:26 EDT --- REVIEW FOR 8d0af5eecdb1a646e0f5ecce75be5648 sion-0.1.0-1.fc11.src.rpm OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/sion-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2) and meets the Licensing Guidelines. FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec does not match the actual license. All the headers read: * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License. This is GPLv2 only, AFIAR from my plugins Enrico usually uses this OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. NOTE - MUST: The spec file for the is legible, but I would prefer line brakes in the configure statements OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by MD5 d38ba0f6468793f1860bbc6a5797916d OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on all arches OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . OK - MUST: The package contains code OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. NOTE - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. But AFIAK we don't use vendor any longer for new packages. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/DesktopFileVendor OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: The package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. OK - SHOULD: The package has no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin OK - SHOULD: Timestamp of Source matches If you fix the License tag you can consider this package APPROVED. The rest is up to you. -- 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