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=615848 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-19 07:05:26 EDT --- + OK - NA ? ISSUE ? 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: - 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. SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. - 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. The ttf name is BrettFont1.1.ttf Any particular reason why you're not using 1.1 as version and the time stamp instead? 2. rpmlint output: oflb-brett-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install oflb-brett-fonts.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean oflb-brett-fonts.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag oflb-brett-fonts.spec: W: no-%clean-section oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/brettalton/205 HTTP Error 404: Not Found oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section oflb-brett-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/brettalton/205 HTTP Error 404: Not Found oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://openfontlibrary.org/media/files/brettalton/205 HTTP Error 404: Not Found oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag oflb-brett-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings. Ignorable warnings. Please check up the clean section and build root. I also think the version would be better as 1.1 rather than the time stamp for this font. I'll approve it once we have the version clarified. 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