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=560808 Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-01 17:43:15 EST --- Shamelessly copied from Notting's original review. MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistent macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License - LGPLv2+ - OK - License field in spec matches - OK - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - Package needs ExcludeArch - OK - BuildRequires correct - OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - OK - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK - .la files are removed. - OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - Tested x86_64 (w/mock) - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. - OK - No rpmlint output. - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1957532 - OK - Should function as described. - Same code as libiphone - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - OK - Should have dist tag - OK - Should package latest version - OK So, for approval: - Include devel docs (they're in docs/html, bonus points for writing out a devhelp browseable - Remove libiphone obsoletes and requires, the library isn't compatible, and both versions should be parallel installable anyway -- 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