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=483863 --- Comment #7 from Joshua Rosen <bjrosen@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-16 18:24:04 EDT --- This is an informal review, I'm just learning the packaging process. I've built and installed this package on 32 bit F11. The application appears on the Applications/Graphics menu which is the logical place for it. I starts up correctly. # MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] OK /home/bjrosen/rpmbuild/SPECS> rpmlint g3dviewer.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # 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 unless your package has an exemption. [2] . 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. [3] OK # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. OK # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK # MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, NA # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK # MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths OK # MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, NA # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, 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: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. NA # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK, --disable-static switch in the %build section # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). NA # MUST: 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 # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK # MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 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 -- 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