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=526122 Rene Ploetz <reneploetz@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |reneploetz@xxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Rene Ploetz <reneploetz@xxxxxx> 2009-09-30 16:37:39 EDT --- This is an unofficial review (as I'm not sponsored yet): +: ok !: needs to be fixed -: not applicable MUST Items: [+] rpmlint comes out clean (the no-documentation warning is not a problem when having a *-doc package, but see below) [+] packages are named according to package guidelines [+] spec file name matches base package name [+] the package license (Vim charityware) is correct and allowed in Fedora (the license is GPL-compatible) [+] license field matches the actual license [-] license packaged in %doc if available separately in original package [+] the spec file is legible and written in American English [+] package md5sum matches upstream (3f0e34465b577aac6448c9c95da71abf) [+] package builds fine in koji [-] locales are properly handled [+] no system libraries are bundled [-] if package installs libraries in default paths run ldconfig in %post/%postun [+] package owns the directories it creates [+] no file is listed twice [+] permissions on files are explicitly set (via defattr) [+] package must contain %clean with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [+] macros are consistently used [+] package does contain code and/or permissible content [+] (large) documentation goes into *-doc subpackage (see comments below) [-] header files must be included in a *-devel subpackage [-] static files must be included in a *-static subpackage [-] packaging pkgconfig(.pc) files requires to set "Requires: pkgconfig" [-] library files without a suffix (foo.so) must go into -devel subpackage if libraries with a suffix (e.g. foo.so.0.0) are present. [-] %{name}-devel packages must specify a fully versioned dependency on the %{name} package [-] packages must not contain any libtool (.la) archives [-] (most) GUI applications need to include a %{name}.desktop file [+] packages must not own any file or directory already owned by another package [+] first command in %install must be rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [+] all filenames in package are valid UTF-8 Should Items: [!] if source package does not include license text as separate file, packager should query upstream to include it [-] if available, description and summary in spec file should contain translations for non-English languages [+] packages build fine in mock [+] packages should compile on all supported architectures [+] packages work as expected in a short test [+] scriptlets - if used - must be sane [-] non-devel subpackages should require the base package [-] pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in -devel package [-] if package does require a file outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin, packager should require the package which provides the file (not the file alone) I have only a singe point to comment on: Upstream does not include any kind of license text as separate file. Did you try to query them to include a LICENSE file in their next release? This is by no means a requirement, but it would be better to verify that our package is legal even their homepage somehow vanishes and we have to prove our the license classification. -- 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