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=597307 --- Comment #2 from Adam Huffman <bloch@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-01 10:34:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > This is an informal review. Formal review will follow. > Thanks for taking a look. > Critical issue: > MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. > SHOULD: The package builds in mock. > $ mock --rebuild fastx_toolkit-0.0.13-1.fc12.src.rpm > is failed because libgtextutils-devel which is set as BuildRequires is not > available by Fedora. > > You should add libgtextutils-devel package to Fedora first. > Yes, that's right. I uploaded a bunch of new requests late on Friday, after having installed them locally. The request for libgtextutils is at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598511 > > Issues: > $ rpmlint fastx_toolkit.spec > fastx_toolkit.spec:8: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: > line 8) > Please fix mixed usage of spaces and tabs. > Will take a look at that. > > Lists confirmed: > + rpmlint against SRPM returns spelling-error warning. However the words > pointed by rpmlint are from official website and seem to be no problem. > > + Spec file name meets Packaging Guidelines. > + License: AGPLv3 meets Licensing Guidelines. > + Source file match with upstream one with md5sum and sha1sum. > > > MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a > duplicate. OK > MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used > consistently. OK > MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK > MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK > MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the > Licensing Guidelines. OK > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > OK > MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. OK > MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A > MUST: Clean section exists. OK > MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A > MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK > SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK > SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from > upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK > > The following item will be checked after the critical issue is solved. > MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. > MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. > MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package > that owns the directory. > MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. > MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. > MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. > MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect > runtime of application. > MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. > MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files > ending in .so must go in a -devel package. > MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. > MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. > MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. > MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. -- 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