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=579593 --- Comment #3 from Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-19 04:51:11 EDT --- MUST: * package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . * spec file name match base package * package meet Packaging Guidelines . * package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . * License field match the actual license. * available license(s) file(s) is included in %doc. * spec file is written in American English. * spec file is legible. * sources match upstream (md5sum) not possible because source is pulled from upstream SVN (See Notes in Spec) ? package compile on x86 * build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires * no locales * no shared libs * package not relocatable * package own all directories that it creates. * no duplicate files in the %files listing. * Permissions on files must be set properly. (%defattr(...) line) * %clean section present and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) * package is consistently using macros * package contain code, or permissable content * no large doc * %doc does not affect runtime * no headers * no static libs * no *.pc files * no *.so.* libs * no -devel packages * package dont contain .la libtool archives. * not a GUI app. * no files or directories already owned by other packages. * %install begins with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) * filenames is valid UTF-8 SHOULD: ? I have not tested if it builds * no scriptlets * no subpackages -- 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