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=506721 Nikolay Vladimirov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Nikolay Vladimirov <nikolay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-24 18:45:45 EDT --- Ok, scratch the previous I had a rethink so: MUST: * rpmlint output: 0 errors, 0 warnings ( both srpm and binary rpm) * package name: OK * The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exeption: OK * Packaging Guidelines: OK * License: OK * The License field file matches the actual license: OK * License included in %doc: OK * The spec file must be written in American English: OK * The spec file for the package MUST be legible: OK * The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source: OK * The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture: OK ( on i586) * All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires: OK * The spec file MUST handle locales properly: N/A ( no locales) * Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun: OK * A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory: OK * A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings: OK * 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 * Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT): OK * Each package must consistently use macros: OK * The package must contain code, or permissable content: OK * Header files must be in a -devel package: OK * Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability): OK * If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package: OK * In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} : OK * Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built: OK * At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT): OK * All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 : OK SHOULD Items: * The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock: OK (for i586 rawhide) Minor things before commit: * Update the changelog before committing * Note the clutter version in build requres since it's still(0.8.8 in f11) BuildRequires: clutter-devel >= 0.9.4 * add HACKING and README to %doc -- 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