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=426751 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #58 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-03 06:26:04 EDT --- Okay according to spot this is okay as BSD: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-March/msg00002.html I am sponsoring Yaakov. Here is the review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output clean [+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines [+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible. [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release 73a4ba56b8cef69ce3659ab452e4530b X11-1.4.5.tar.gz [+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch [+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] 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: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [NA] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1216598 [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This package is APPROVED for inclusion in Fedora. Thanks for your patience as this was also one of the early packages used as a testcase during revising the Haskell Packaging Guidelines. -- 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