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=627637 Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-26 22:22:03 EDT --- An unofficial 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@070905042 rpmbuild]$ md5sum qroneko-0.5.4.tar.gz SOURCES/qroneko-0.5.4.tar.gz 5e2e20d9ce40e076cbe79d64a21f6e6b qroneko-0.5.4.tar.gz 52ef339ece38cb408ab17afc81165edb SOURCES/qroneko-0.5.4.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. 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. You've gotten the license wrong. The source files specify GPLv2+ as the license. Please confirm. Also consider including a copy of the license in the package. You should request upstream to consider including a copy in the tar next release too. 2.You've missed out the docs in the package. The copy of the license and the README should be included as docs. 3. Description/Summary could be changed to "A qt front end to crontab" or something similiar, more informative than what it is currently. 4. URL needs to be corrected as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net 5. You forgot to add your name to the changelog ;) 6. rpmlint output : [Ankur@070905042 SRPMS]$ rpmlint qroneko-0.5.4-1.fc13.src.rpm ../SPECS/qroneko.spec /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm qroneko.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crontab -> Cronkite, frontal, cronyism qroneko.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crontab -> Cronkite, frontal, cronyism qroneko.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crontab -> Cronkite, frontal, cronyism qroneko.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crontab -> Cronkite, frontal, cronyism qroneko.i686: W: no-documentation qroneko.i686: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/applications/qroneko.desktop 0644L /usr/bin/env qroneko.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qroneko qroneko.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crontab -> Cronkite, frontal, cronyism qroneko.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crontab -> Cronkite, frontal, cronyism 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Please look at these and correct the errors. -- 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