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=565376 Naveen Kumar <nkumar@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nkumar@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #5 from Naveen Kumar <nkumar@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-24 05:54:51 EST --- Here's an unofficial review, using the Tibbs checklist as reference from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/Review_Template + source files match upstream: sha256sum from both source and upstream were: 52cb7b699159a804158045d2ae79bf80ce28e2febc2bb3e808784242d829c9ee qstardict-0.13.1.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and versioning guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license field matches the actual license. + license is open source-compatible: license text included in package. + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + compiler flags are appropriate. + %clean is present. + package builds in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2011001 + package installs properly. * rpmlint is gives warning but no errors. (rpmlint version 0.94) rpmlint OUTPUT on qstardict-0.13.1-1.fc12.src.rpm & qstardict-0.13.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm: qstardict.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US popup -> pop up, pop-up, popular qstardict.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://qstardict.ylsoftware.com IncompleteRead(0 bytes read) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. * final provides and requires are sane: rpm -qp --provides OUTPUT on qstardict-0.13.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm: libstardict.so()(64bit) libweb.so()(64bit) qstardict = 0.13.1-1.fc12 qstardict(x86-64) = 0.13.1-1.fc12 rpm -qp --requires OUTPUT on qstardict-0.13.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm: libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtDBus.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 + shared libraries are added: ldconfig not run since it acts as plugin and does not provide API to be used. + owns the directories it creates. + doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + scriptlets sane + code, not content. + documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. + no headers. + no pkgconfig files. + no libtool .la droppings. + desktop files valid and installed properly. -- 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