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=517615 Jan Klepek <jan.klepek@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Jan Klepek <jan.klepek@xxxxxx> 2009-08-29 10:12:42 EDT --- rpmlint must be run on every package. - ok, rpmlint clean The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. - 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 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 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 ExcludeArch present. - OK All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. - OK The spec file MUST handle locales properly. - OK Ldconfig in %post and %postun. - not needed, OK Relocatable package and /usr prefix. - 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 correct %clean section. - 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, no large documentation 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, no static lib Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' . - OK, no .pc Library with .so suffix must be in -devel package. - OK, no .so In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK, no devel Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. - OK, no .la Gui application and desktop-file-install. - OK, no desktop 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 conclusion: approved -- 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