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=525358 kashyap chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from kashyap chamarthy <kchamart@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-24 03:23:09 EDT --- Hi, here is my /informal/ review, **NOK** - rpmlint output --------------------- [build@f12-alpha SPECS]$ rpmlint python-assets.spec python-assets.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 6) --------------------- Please fix the above.(use consistently either tabs or spaces) OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release OK - The package must be 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 - 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 package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is GPLv2) NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1702920 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. sha256sum: eef40e4714f019d76bf9ab44c0fe27e3e6ec5980918012caf81b2e3693c78d09 assets-0.1.0.tar.gz NA - The spec file MUST handle locales properly (no translations) NA - The package is not relocatable 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 OK - Each package must consistently use macros OK - The package must contain code, or permissible content OK - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage -- No large documentation OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application NA - Header files must be in a -devel package -- no devel package NA - Static libraries must be in a -static package -- no static package NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives NA - Packages containing GUI applications MUST include a .desktop file OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK- At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} **NOTE**: I think you can avoid the "rm -rf %{buildroot}" in %install section, if you're building _only_ for F11 and above.(IIRC,this guideline is not /yet/ updated in the packaging guidelines ) OK - All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. Please correct me, if I'm wrong somewhere. -- 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