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=496635 --- Comment #44 from Mauricio Henriquez <buhochileno@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-09 20:55:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #43) > - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted > in the review: > monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: E: no-binary > monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > monodevelop-debugger-mdb.i586: W: no-documentation > monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:47: E: hardcoded-library-path in > %{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerClient.dll* > monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:49: E: hardcoded-library-path in > %{_prefix}/lib/monodevelop/AddIns/MonoDevelop.Debugger/DebuggerServer.exe* > monodevelop-debugger-mdb.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in > %{buildroot}/usr/lib > monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: E: description-line-too-long The > monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel package contains development files for > monodevelop-debugger-mdb. > monodevelop-debugger-mdb-devel.i586: W: no-documentation > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 3 warnings. > > * hardcoded paths are only the old location - OK > * no-documentation: no docs available > * no-binary, only-non-bin...: mono bins are not recognized > > * TODO: shorten description line > > > - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines > OK > > - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the > format %{name}.spec > OK > > - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. > OK > > - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines. > OK > > - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. > OK > > - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package must be included in %doc. > OK > > - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. > OK > > - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > OK > > - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > OK - b60e9a0783f294aaa137c78e32c4f6be - md5 of the original tarball > > - MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > OK - i386 > > - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an > architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in > bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on > that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the > corresponding ExcludeArch line. > OK - bug in x86_64 and mono-debugger not available on other architectures > > - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; > inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. > OK > > - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. > OK > > - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > OK > > - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf > %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > OK > > - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. > OK > > - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > OK > > - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with > any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you > feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another > package owns, then please present that at package review time. > OK > > - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} > (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > OK > > - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > OK > > ############################################################ > > One thing left before you can upload the package in CVS: > > - Please shorten the Description line. (Simply place the %{name} variable in a > new line. you mean just this?: %description %{name} > > This is the only thing left. It's only minor, so I'm going to approve this > package right now. Thank you for the hard work. Do you already have been > sponsored? Think not, Toshio help me at the beggining but think that no one officially sponsor me... > > More info for the next steps: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored reading... > > APPROVED Great!!!, uuhhuuu, finally my first package...what a ride ;-) Thanks Paul.. -- 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