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=483543 --- Comment #12 from William Cohen <wcohen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-16 16:37:58 EDT --- Re-read the packaging guidelines and used Bug 483205 (review of eclipse-systemtapgui) comment #23 to do a more systematic review. Found a couple minor things: X %description, minor typo, "client.It" Should be a space in there X License: EPL but FSF GPLv2 based COPYING and INSTALL files in root of build. X Empty AUTHORS, NEWS, README, and ChangeLog files in root of build directory * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * md5sum matches upstream * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used correctly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output * changelog format okay * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on x86_64 (but is correctly noarch) * summary and description fine * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * not native, so no rpath, static linking, etc. * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel necessary * install section begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * no translations so no locale handling * no Requires(pre,post) * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions fine * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs - these look good to me * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs => no output * package includes license text in the package and marks it with %doc Just starting to look over the internals of systemtapgui-server code. In SubscriptionMgr::SubscriptionMgr() is the "sleep(1);" necessary? -- 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