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=526126 --- Comment #64 from Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-10 08:48:25 EST --- MUST: * package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . * spec file name match base package * package meet Packaging Guidelines . * package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . * License field match the actual license. * available license(s) file(s) is included in %doc. * spec file is written in American English. * spec file is legible. * sources match upstream (md5sum) d1ddd9f16e3c6a51c7208f33518cd674 Python-3.1.1.tar.bz2 (upstream) d1ddd9f16e3c6a51c7208f33518cd674 Python-3.1.1.tar.bz2 (srpm) * package compile on x86 * build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires * no locales * available shared library files calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. * package not relocatable * package own all directories that it creates. * no duplicate files in the %files listing. * Permissions on files must be set properly. (%defattr(...) line) * %clean section present and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) * package is consistently using macros * package contain code, or permissable content * no large doc * %doc does not affect runtime ? available Header files go into -devel package. What about this one ? python3.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/python3.1/pyconfig-32.h * no static libs X available pkgconfig(.pc) files 'Requires: pkgconfig' There is a buildrequire on pkgconfig, but no Requires: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PkgconfigFiles * no unversioned *.so.* libs * available devel packages uses fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} * package dont contain .la libtool archives. * not a GUI app. * no files or directories already owned by other packages. * %install begins with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) * filenames is valid UTF-8 SHOULD: * source package include license text(s) in separate file from upstream * builds in mock. Not tried, but koji build has been done so it should be ok * compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. * package functions as described. * scriptlets is sane. * subpackages require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review