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=549593 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(sundaram@xxxxxxxx | |om) | --- Comment #6 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-27 18:43:48 EST --- OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 f3f9c549ddac430904f61d80ebf7d1ac OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 OK - MUST: no ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang OK - MUST: calls ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - MUST: does not bundle copies of system libraries. OK - MUST: not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package OK - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. OK - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete Issues: - License tag should be GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ because the libs are LGPLv2+ and only tumblerd is GPLv2+ - make is not verbose (V=1) - $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/tumbler-* tumbler.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install tumbler.src: W: no-buildroot-tag tumbler.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab: line 1) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Although the buildroot tag and the cleaning of buildroot are no longer required, it cant hurt to have them. Same for Same for 'Requires: pkgconfig' in the devel package. Fix the first two, the rest is up to you. APPROVED -- 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