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=487349 --- Comment #2 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti <promac@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-25 13:46:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > - = N/A > x = Check > ! = Problem > ? = Not evaluated > > === REQUIRED ITEMS === > [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. > [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one > supported architecture. > Tested on: devel/x86_64 > [x] Rpmlint output: > source RPM: empty > binary RPM: > bashdb.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bashdb/getopts_long.sh 0644 > => this one is ignorable, the script is to be used from inside bashdb > emacs-bashdb.noarch: W: no-documentation > => ignorable > [x] Package is not relocatable. > [x] Buildroot is correct > (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) > [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other > legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. > [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > License type as specified by sources: GPLv2+ > License type as specified by spec: GPLv2 > => unless I am mistaken, please fix the spec > [x] 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 is included in %doc. > [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > SHA1SUM of package: 9a4da7ff53cbb072140b1584385bf87eff26c824 > bashdb-4.0-0.2.tar.bz2 > [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [-] The spec file handles locales properly. > [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. > [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x] Permissions on files are set properly. > [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. > [x] Package consistently uses macros. > [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. > [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. > [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. > [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. > [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). > [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI > application. > [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x] Final provides and requires are sane. > > === SUGGESTED ITEMS === > [x] Latest version is packaged. > [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains > translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > Tested on: devel/x86_64 > [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > Tested on: > [x] Package functions as described. > Ttested in F10/x86_64 > [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. > [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. > [x] File based requires are sane. > [x] %check is present and the test passes. > > > === Issues === > 1. Please fix the license tag before commit Changed to GPLv2+ > > === Notes === > 1. I would add INSTALL="install -p" to the make install line Done. I also added a "check" section. %install rm -rf %{buildroot} make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=%{buildroot} %{__rm} -f "%{buildroot}%{_infodir}/dir" %check make check Thanks. -- 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