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=668588 Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andrew.elwell@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Andrew Elwell <andrew.elwell@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-12 09:15:54 EST --- Informal review (as I'm still awaiting sponsorship): MUST Items: * rpmlint [aelwell@pcitgtelwell pil]$ rpmlint python26-imaging* python26-imaging.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel python26-imaging.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tk -> kt, t, k 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. -- false warning. OK OK - Package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. -- hard coded python version is there for an explained reason OK - Spec file in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. WARN - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. -- "All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment" -- they don't (but it's only a SHOULD) OK - Package licensed with a Fedora approved license. OK - License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK (it's in the README) - If source includes the text of the license(s) package it in %{doc}. OK - The spec file must be written in American English. OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK (fc14a54e1ce02a0225be8854bfba478e) - The sources must match the upstream source URL md5sum. OK (tested on RHEL5 + EPEL python26) - Package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms - unsucessful compile, build or work on an architecture should be listed ExcludeArch. -- each ExcludeArch has corresponding bugzilla no in comment adjacent. OK - Build dependencies listed in BuildRequires. OK - Spec file using the %find_lang macro for locales (not using %{_datadir}/locale/*). OK - If shared library files (not just symlinks), call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK - Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK - if relocatable, must be stared with rationalization -- without this use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK - A package must own all directories that it creates, or require a package which creates that directory. OK - No duplicates in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] OK - Permissions on files must be set properly. OK -- Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. OK -- Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK - Each package must consistently use macros. OK - The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK - things in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. OK - Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - If library files with a suffix (libfoo.so.1.1), then plain .so in a -devel package. OK - -devel packages need fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, -- these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK - GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, -- installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. -- or explain why exempt in a comment in the spec file. OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: Items below are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. N/A - query upstream if the source does not include license text(s) as a separate file. NO - description and summary in spec file should contain translations, if available. N/A (awaiting sponsorship) - The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Not Tested - The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. PARTIALLY DONE - The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. OK - If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. YES - Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30] - If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. - your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Tested on a RHEL5 (clone) box + EPEL for dependencies -- Built OK and basic functionality OK. -- 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