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=540328 Tareq Al Jurf <taljurf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Tareq Al Jurf <taljurf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-09 15:12:20 EDT --- Sorry for the long delay due to a problem with my bugzilla account Review For: gtkhash-0.3.0-2.fc13.src.rpm Must: rpmlint is silent - OK Must: Named according to package naming guidelines - OK Must: Spec matches base %{name} - OK Must: Package meets packaging guidelines - OK Must: License is Fedora approved - OK Must: License in spec matches the actual license - OK Must: There is a license file and it is included in %doc - OK Must: The spec is written in American English -OK Must: The spec is legible -OK Must: The sources match the upstream files by MD5 - OK 657e5278f5f0b83a4954d09353f92294 Must: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. - OK Must: Successfully compiles and builds into rpms on i686 - OK Must: All the build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires - OK Must: Locales are properly handled with %find_lang - OK Must: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. - N/A Must: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. - OK Must: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. - N/A Must: owns all directories it creates - OK Must: not list a file in %files section twice. - OK Must: permissions correctly set in %files using %defattr() Must: has a %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) - OK Must: consistently use macros. - OK Must: The package must contain code, or permissable content. - OK Must: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. - N/A Must: Files in %doc don't 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. - N/A Must: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) 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: .la files removed - OK Must: Desktop file properly installed. - OK Must: The ackage doesn't own files or directories which are already owned by other packages. Must: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - OK Must: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - OK Should: Has the license as a seperate text file. - OK Should: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. - N/A Should: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - OK Should: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - OK Should: Functions as described. - OK Should: Scriptlets are sane. - OK Should: pkgconfig(.pc) should be placed in a -devel pkg. - N/A Should: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - OK Should: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. - N/A Should: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. - N/A The package is 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