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=583102 --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-10 13:43:34 EDT --- review: + OK ? issue - NA + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant macro usage. + Meets Packaging Guidelines. + License ? License field in spec matches + License file included in package + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream md5sum: [Ankur@localhost SPECS]$ md5sum radiotray-0.5.1.tar.gz 9811f8145108784e8e515b66fdaa6f05 radiotray-0.5.1.tar.gz [Ankur@localhost SPECS]$ md5sum ../SOURCES/radiotray-0.5.1.tar.gz 9811f8145108784e8e515b66fdaa6f05 ../SOURCES/radiotray-0.5.1.tar.gz - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct + Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package has a correct %clean section. + Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - .so files in -devel subpackage. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. + Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file + Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. + Package has no duplicate files in %files. + Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. + Package owns all the directories it creates. + No rpmlint output. NOT CHECKED YET - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock.: builds in koji - Should build on all supported archs + Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. please check the license, the COPYING and source files feature a GPLv1+ 2. please comment the spec file and add reasons for patching in there too. 3. why are explicit requires used in the spec? Please add comments justifying them http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Explicit_Requires Please correct the above, I'll complete the review once they're taken care of. regards, Ankur -- 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