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=486570 --- Comment #3 from Hugo Cisneiros <hugo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-30 17:38:01 EDT --- I know this isn't completely right, but I did some review prior to taking the package. I hope someone sees this and get to approve :) MUST Items: - rpmlint must be run on every package. OK courier-authlib.i586: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/authlib/authdaemonrc.dist - Acceptable courier-authlib.i586: W: non-standard-uid /var/spool/authdaemon courier - Acceptable courier-authlib.i586: W: non-standard-gid /var/spool/authdaemon courier - Acceptable courier-authlib.i586: W: missing-lsb-keyword Default-Stop in /etc/rc.d/init.d/courier-authlib - Acceptable 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. - Package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name} - OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. - OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines - OK - The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - OK - Package contains the text of license in its own file - OK (COPYING.GPL) - 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, as provided in the spec URL. - OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - OK (All Archs on Scratch Koji) - All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - OK - The spec file MUST handle locales properly. - OK (Not Needed) - Every binary RPM package with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. - OK - A package must own all directories that it creates. - 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. - 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 - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. - OK (Not Needed) - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. - OK - Header files must be in a -devel package. - OK - Static libraries must be in a -static package. - OK (Not needed) - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). - OK (Not Needed) - Packages with .so files without suffix go to -devel package - OK (Not needed) - devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency - OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. - OK (Not needed) - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file - OK (Not needed) - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. - 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: - If license file not included, query upstream for it. - OK (Not needed) - Description and Summary translations in the spec - OK (Not needed) - The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - OK (All Archs on Scratch Koji) - The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.- OK (All Archs on Scratch Koji) - The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. - OK - If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. - OK - Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - OK - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files in -devel pkg - OK (Not needed) -- 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