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=652835 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> 2010-11-15 01:59:39 EST --- OK, here is. "+" - OK, "0" - not require. [+]: rpmlint is almost silent but wrong possitive spelling warning. [+]: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [+]: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+]: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [+]: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [+]: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+]: File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, included in %doc. [+]: The spec file must be written in American English. [+]: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+]: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+]: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [0]: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+]: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+]: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [0]: 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. [+]: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [0]: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. [+]: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+]: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [+]: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+]: Each package must consistently use macros. [+]: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [0]: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+]: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [0]: Header files must be in a -devel package. [0]: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [0]: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [0]: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. [+]: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [+]: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+]: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+]: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. /===========/ / 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