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=556988 --- Comment #13 from Ding-Yi Chen <dchen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-26 03:07:33 EST --- MUST: - rpmlint output is acceptable. W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9.1-6.fc14 ['0.9.1-6.fc12', '0.9.1-6'] Remove the .fc14 part + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + Package meets licensing guidelines, and match the source license. + Source files match upstream. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + BuildRoot is proper. + BuildRequires are proper. + Requires are proper. + %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + %clean contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + %doc files present. + %doc files do not interfere runtime application. + Macros are consistently used. + Package builds in koji. + Package contains code or permissible content. + Package installed properly. + No system library is bundled. + Not relocatable, unless proper justification is presented. + %files section must include a %defattr(...) line, and file permissions are correct. + No duplication in %files + File names are in valid UTF-8. + Own all directory it creates. + Files or directories are not owned by other packages. + Large documentation files goes in a -doc subpackage. + No .la libtool archives exists. SHOULD: + License text are in separate files. + Translations for supported non-English languages if available. + Package build in mock. + Package can build in all supported architectures. + Package runs properly. + Scriptlets are sane. + Subpackages Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + .pc is in devel subpackage. + No direct files dependencies, unless they are in either /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin -- 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