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=637511 Christof Damian <christof@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |christof@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |christof@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Christof Damian <christof@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-01 08:11:22 EDT --- MUST: OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK: If (and only if) 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 must be included in %doc. OK: The spec file must be written in American English. OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. 6977ce19dcc469f95c227bf5ea08a8e7 PHP_CodeCoverage-1.0.0.tgz OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. builds in mock f14 OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK: Each package must consistently use macros. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD: OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. *** 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