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=626068 Thibault North <thibault.north@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Thibault North <thibault.north@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-06 08:28:31 EDT --- - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. OK - MUST: 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. OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. CHECK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least i386. OK - MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. N/A - MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths OK - MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. CHECK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: There are no Large documentation files OK - MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK - MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries OK - MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix OK - MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. N/A - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING OK - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386. OK - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK - SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane. OK - SHOULD: No subpackages present. OK For next build, just fix the source URL (got a 404), and fix the permissions for mot-adms-download.tcl 0775 (see rpmlint) APPROVED -- 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