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=467421 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(rjones@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-03 19:02:42 EDT --- Note: SRPM URL no longer valid, and the Source0 field does not provide a URL; I'm reviewing the slightly modified spec, using the newest gtk-vnc release. It looks like all patches can be dropped; I only have several things to clarify. Most of them are listed below, but also this: Documentation: the guideline specifies that man and info pages can be left out if they duplicate the pages in the main Fedora package. But how about license texts, README, ChangeLog, etc. -- the files that normally go under %doc ? Updated spec attached. MUST: + rpmlint: clean (but no documentation) + package name + spec file name + package guideline-compliant + license complies with guidelines + license field accurate - license file not deleted + spec in US English + spec legible - source matches upstream + builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded + build dependencies complete N/A locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale ? library -> ldconfig (this is not needed for MinGW, I suppose?) N/A relocatable: give reason + own all directories + no dupes in %files + permission + %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT + macros used consistently + Package contains code N/A large docs => -doc N/A doc not runtime dependent ? headers in -devel: presumably all mingw32- packages are meant for cross-compiling, so this is irrelevant? N/A static in -static + if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig ? if libfiles are suffixed, the non-suffixed goes to devel ? devel requires versioned base package N/A desktop file uses desktop-file-install N/A clean buildroot before install + filenames UTF-8 SHOULD N/A if license text missing, ask upstream to include it - desc and summary contain translations if available ? package build in mock on all architectures Not tested -- not all dependencies in Fedora yet, thus no Koji + package functioned as described + scriplets are sane N/A other subpackages should require versioned base + if main pkg is development-wise, pkgconfig can go in main package + require package not files -- 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