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=478770 Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-16 10:36:39 EDT --- Here goes full review: + rpmlint output clean. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + Source package does not includes the text of the license(s) in its own file. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + Architectures where package does not successfully compile, build or work are listed in ExcludeArch. Bugs should be filled against all 4 spring packages after their acceptance and added to FE-ExcludeArch-ppc{,64} tracker: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The spec file handles locales properly. + Package does not store shared libraries. + The package does not designed to be relocatable. + A package owns all directories that it creates. + A package does not list a file more than once in the spec %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + Does not contain large documentation files. + Includes only doc files in %doc. + No headers. + No static libraries. + The package does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The package does not contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). + No devel packages. + The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. + Package includes %{name}.desktop file. Properly installed with desktop-file-install. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8. + The package builds in mock. + A package does not segfault instead of running. This package is APPROVED, cvs creation should delayed until all four spring packages are accepted. -- 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