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=603481 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-07 04:59:33 EST --- Sorry it took so long, this dropped of my radar. (In reply to comment #16) > I settled on freerdp providing xfreerdp, freerdp-libs with the dynamic > libraries, freerdp-plugins for "optional" plugins to libfreerdpchanman from > freerdp-libs, and freerdp-devel. Sounds good to me. REVIEW FOR 89b239734db4e419925af122ef5d0301 freerdp-0.8.1-1.fc14.src.rpm OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-x86_64/result/*.rpm freerdp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xrdp -> xref, hardpan, Oxnard freerdp.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdesktop -> desktop, r desktop, copydesk freerdp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xrdp -> xref, hardpan, Oxnard freerdp.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rdesktop -> desktop, r desktop, copydesk freerdp-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libs -> lobs, lib, lis freerdp-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfreerdp -> liberticide, subfreezing freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfreerdpchanman freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libfreerdpkbd freerdp-libs.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libfreerdp.so.0.0.0 exit@xxxxxxxxxxx freerdp-plugins.x86_64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. - Spelling errors can be ignored, the spelling is correct. - No documentation can be ignored, the docs are in another subpackage - shared-lib-calls-exit should be fixe upstream. Not a blocker. OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines (GPLv2+) OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible FIX - MUST: sources do not match the upstream source by MD5 - Upstream: 8a265ce267ea6508d30db29fd3c3c037 - SRPM: 1e64b766874966004c07db12fe73dde8 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang OK - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun (freerdp-libs). OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: Header files are in -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package OK - MUST: library files that end in .so are in the -devel package. OK - MUST: devel packages requires the freerdp-libs package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - The package contains a GUI application, but as xfreerdp cannot be called without arguments, the desktop file is useless OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - Should: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures (tested in koji). OK - SHOULD: functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. OK - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files are placed in -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin OK - SHOULD: package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete OK - SHOULD: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. FIX - SHOULD: -devel package contains a pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. Please download the source tarball again to make sure it's timestamp and md5 matches. Fix the points marked with FIX before build and consider the package 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