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=484049 --- Comment #3 from Alan Dunn <amdunn@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-06 15:43:02 EDT --- Thank you for reviewing this. I've been so busy with other things I haven't even had the time to search around for a reviewer and this has been sitting here quite a while. I'll try to tackle these as soon as I possibly can - good catch with the template error btw, guess that reveals that I've mainly used Emacs before eh? (though, of course, I did test that the package works in XEmacs) (In reply to comment #2) > MUST items: > - rpmlint output: > emacs-proofgeneral.noarch: W: no-documentation > emacs-proofgeneral-el.noarch: W: no-documentation > xemacs-proofgeneral.noarch: W: no-documentation > xemacs-proofgeneral-el.noarch: W: no-documentation > 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > - package name > - spec file name matches base package name > X packaging guidelines: as noted in comment #1, we may have a problem with > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects. > Also note that some files in the top-level lib directory may violate this > rule, too. > - good license > - license field matches actual license > - include license file in %doc > - spec file in American English > - spec file legible > - sources match upstream > - builds on at least one primary arch > - use ExcludeArch as necessary (N/A) > - all build dependencies in BuildRequires > - proper locale handling (N/A) > - call ldconfig as necessary (N/A) > - rationale if relocatable (N/A) > - own all created directories > - no duplicate %file listings > - proper file permissions > - %clean section > - consistent use of macros > - code or permissible content > - large documentation files in a subpackage (N/A) > - nothing in %doc needed at runtime > - header files in -devel (N/A) > - static libraries in -static (N/A) > - require pkgconfig if necessary (N/A) > - .so files in -devel (N/A) > - -devel requires base package (N/A) > - no libtool archives > - desktop files for GUI apps: rationale given in the description above > - don't own files or dirs created by other packages > - clean at top of %install > - filenames are UTF-8 > > SHOULD items: > - query upstream for license file (N/A) > - description and summary contain available translations (N/A) > ? package builds in mock: not checked > ? package builds on all suppported arches: not checked > - package functions as described > - sane scriptlets > - subpackages require main package > - pkgconfig files in -devel (N/A) > - package dependencies instead of file dependencies > > So we just need to investigate the use of bundled software and this package is > good to go. Thanks for submitting it! This will make a great addition to the > other prover-related software that has been pushed into Fedora recently. -- 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