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=588616 --- Comment #2 from Chen Lei <supercyper@xxxxxxx> 2010-05-05 04:21:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Let me do a informal review. > Package Review > ============== > Key: > - = N/A > x = Check > ! = Problem > ? = Not evaluated > === REQUIRED ITEMS === > [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. > [X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one > supported architecture. > [x] Rpmlint output: > halibut.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag > halibut.src: W: no-buildroot-tag > vim-halibut.noarch: W: no-documentation > 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > ==> IGNORE > [x] Package is not relocatable. > [x] Buildroot is correct > [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other > legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > License type:MIT > [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in > its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package is included in %doc. > [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > MD5SUM this package :f8705a25bfd137fe7a5c0bde3523befa > MD5SUM upstream package:f8705a25bfd137fe7a5c0bde3523befa > [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: > Arches excluded: > Why: > [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [-] The spec file handles locales properly. > [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. > [-] Package must own all directories that it creates. > [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x] Permissions on files are set properly. > [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). > [x] Package consistently uses macros. > [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. > [x] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. > [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. > [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. > [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). > [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI > application. > [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [?] Im new to packaging,but i feel there is a no need for a seperate package > vim-halibut > Regards > Imran Can you approve this simple package? Though fedora doesn't have vim addons package guideline, it seems a good idea to package vim addons seperately as the emacs package guideline in fedora. -- 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