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=554647 Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2010-01-28 03:44:46 EST --- MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. NEEDSWORK - Create desktop file in %prep, not in %install. - IMHO too much empty lines within sections. - Use of macros for standard commands is OK, although unnecessary. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. NEEDSWORK - The naming guidelines clearly indicate that the package name should be linux-wbfs-manager. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK - For now. MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSWORK - Not all files are GPLv2: /* Rijndael Block Cipher - rijndael.c Written by Mike Scott 21st April 1999 mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Permission for free direct or derivative use is granted subject to compliance with any conditions that the originators of the algorithm place on its exploitation. */ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK - URL not functioning. MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. NEEDSWORK - Package does not compile. MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - Optimization flags are not used. Using make CFLAGS="%{optflags}" %{?_smp_mflags} does the trick. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. N/A MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. ~OK - Remove the empty %dir line. MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. NEEDSWORK - Debuginfo is empty. MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK - Use %defattr(-,root,root,-). MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Add README to %doc. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. NEEDSWORK - Use desktop-file-install to install the desktop file. MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK - License not included in tarball. SHOULD: The package builds in mock. NEEDSWORK - Does not build at all, when it is fixed it builds in mock. -- 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