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=504809 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-10 07:28:20 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: builds in Koji [x] Rpmlint output: rpmlint system-config-selinux-2.0.62-13.fc10.noarch.rpm system-config-selinux.noarch: W: no-documentation - no doc system-config-selinux.noarch: W: no-dependency-on usermode system-config-selinux.noarch: W: no-dependency-on usermode - depends on usermode-gtk, is it enough? SRPM & SPEC clean [-] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2+ [-] 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 is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - Can't get sources. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [!] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in koji. - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1403234 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?] Package functions as described. - not tested yet, I'll check final one [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === SUMMARY === - Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1403234 - Please publish tarball to default fedorahosted.org release directory (https://fedorahosted.org/releases/s/y/system-config-selinux) - do not apply vendor tag in desktop-file-install (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop) -- 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