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=481034 Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #20 from Michal Schmidt <mschmidt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-17 12:44:26 EDT --- OK: rpmlint was run and its output discussed. OK: Package name meets the Package Naming Guidelines. OK: The *.spec file name matches the package name. OK: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines: OK: naming OK: version and release OK: licensing OK: no pre-built binaries OK: spec is legible OK: builds on all archs OK: FHS layout OK: changelogs OK: tags OK: BuildRoot tag OK: clean buildroot in %install and %clean OK: Requires OK: BuildRequires OK: summary and description OK: encoding OK: documentation N/A: compiler flags (program written in OCaml) N/A: debuginfo (program written in OCaml) N/A: devel packages OK: requiring base package N/A: shared libraries (dllpycaml_stubs.so is not a normal library) OK: no static libraries OK: no duplication of system libraries OK: rpath deleted N/A: config files N/A: initscripts N/A: desktop files OK: macros N/A: locale files OK: timestamps OK: parallel make not used for a reason N/A: scriptlets N/A: conditional deps OK: non-relocatable package OK: file and directory ownership N/A: users and groups N/A: web apps OK: no conflicts OK: no kernel modules OK: nothing in /srv OK: not bundling multiple projects !!! BAD !!!: Patch0 has no comment about its purpose and upstream status. OCaml-specific guidelines: OK: binary stripped, bytecode not stripped OK: compiled binary prefered to bytecode OK: tests for native compiler OK: Meets Licensing Guidelines. OK: License (GPLv2) tag matches the actual license. OK: The license file included in %doc. OK: Spec file written in American English. OK: Source matches upstream. sha1sum: 3457c54a8e13e129a1c514debd6c9e7d41abf9d9 coccinelle-0.1.5.tgz OK: Builds in Koji on all archs. OK: No duplicates in %files. OK: File permissions correct, defattr used properly. OK: Code or permissable content. OK: Large documentation in a separate subpackage. OK: Program works even without %doc. N/A: Headers in -devel. N/A: pkconfig files. N/A: Library with a suffix. OK: Subpackages require the base package using full-versioned dependencies. OK: No .la files. OK: Does not own files or dirs already owned by other packages. OK: Filenames are valid UTF-8. Summary: Please add a comment for Patch0 explaining why the patch is needed and what its upstream status is. The Packaging Guidelines recommend using *-doc as the documentation package name. Yours is named *-docs. Consider changing it. *-docs is not unusual, but *-doc is a bit more common: yum list \*-doc | wc -l 177 yum list \*-docs | wc -l 69 None of these two issues are blockers and they are easy to fix before you import to CVS. I approve the package. -- 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