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=519512 Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |martin.gieseking@xxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking@xxxxxx> 2009-09-24 08:10:09 EDT --- Here's my full review. I couldn't find any further issues that need to be fixed. Just a minor suggestion: Personally, I prefer adding the BRs to the subpackage they actually belong to because then it's easier to reproduce the dependencies. So I would move - BR: doxygen => -doc subpackage - BR: python-devel => -python subpackage - BR: pkgconfig => -devel subpackage $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-i386/result/cmusphinx3-* cmusphinx3-devel.i586: W: no-documentation cmusphinx3-libs.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libs3decoder.so.0.0.6 exit@xxxxxxxxx cmusphinx3-libs.i586: W: no-documentation cmusphinx3-python.i586: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. All warnings are expected and can be ignored. --------------------------------- keys used in following checklist: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - The name sphinx is already in use for a full-text search engine - there are several release series (Sphinx-2, -3, -4, PocketSphinx) - upstream URL is www.cmusphinx.org => cmusphinx3 is a proper name [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. - BSD two clause variant (according to COPYING and source headers) [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: File(s) containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. - COPYING listed in %doc [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ sha1sum sphinx3-0.8.zip* 343af9767342129e1d673423e9bf1a523eff2254 sphinx3-0.8.zip 343af9767342129e1d673423e9bf1a523eff2254 sphinx3-0.8.zip.1 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1703288 [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. - no locales [+] MUST: 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. - shared libs are placed in subpackage -libs - ldconfig is called in %post and %postun for subpackage -libs [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable,... - not relocatable [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: Files must not be listed more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - building of static libraries disabled [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [+] 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. symlink libs3decoder.so put in -devel [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. - .la files are removed [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file. - no GUI [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - builds in mock [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - build in koji [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. - seems to work as expected - I made some short recordings and they were properly anylized [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - subpackage -libs doesn't require the base package - all other subpackages list the base package as a requirement [+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) should be placed in a -devel pkg. -- 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