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=645484 Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-12-26 04:35:41 EST --- Hello, The much awaited review. Sorry David, I just received my system yesterday. [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue + 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@ankur SPECS]$ md5sum django-mptt-0.4.2.zip ../SOURCES/django-mptt-0.4.2.zip 25156bf76b434e844a6141b24c4929da django-mptt-0.4.2.zip 25156bf76b434e844a6141b24c4929da ../SOURCES/django-mptt-0.4.2.zip - 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) Not needed any more and can be removed. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#.25clean + 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. [ankur@ankur result]$ rpmlint *.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done [ankur@ankur result]$ for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done django-mptt-0.4.2-2.fc15.noarch.rpm django-mptt = 0.4.2-2.fc15 = python(abi) = 2.7 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 django-mptt-0.4.2-2.fc15.src.rpm = python2-devel python-setuptools rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. - Should build on all supported archs ? Should function as described. I haven't checked this. - 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) Package looks good. 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