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=668834 Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-12 21:32:11 EST --- Review: + OK ? Issue - NA + 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 rpmbuild]$ md5sum cutecw-0.4.tar.gz SOURCES/cutecw-0.4.tar.gz 0e0439ecf047e67e31be6ebacabdf4dd cutecw-0.4.tar.gz 0e0439ecf047e67e31be6ebacabdf4dd SOURCES/cutecw-0.4.tar.gz + 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) + 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 SPECS]$ rpmlint cutecw.spec ../RPMS/x86_64/cutecw-0.4-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm ../SRPMS/cutecw-0.4-3.fc15.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm cutecw.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cutecw cutecw.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cutecw 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [ankur@ankur SPECS]$ - 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 manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) == cutecw-0.4-3.fc15.i686.rpm == Provides: cutecw = 0.4-3.fc15 cutecw(x86-32) = 0.4-3.fc15 Requires: /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh libQtCore.so.4 libQtGui.so.4 libQtMultimedia.so.4 ... rtld(GNU_HASH) == cutecw-0.4-3.fc15.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: qt-devel >= 4.7 desktop-file-utils == cutecw-debuginfo-0.4-3.fc15.i686.rpm == Provides: cutecw-debuginfo = 0.4-3.fc15 cutecw-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0.4-3.fc15 SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2718322 + Should function as described. + 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) Issues: 1. the buildroot and clean section etc. can be removed http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag 2. Please add a comment describing the patch in the spec http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment 3. Please rename the patch to %{name}-%{reason}.patch. Please correct issues #2,#3 before you set up the git repository since they are explicitly required in the guidelines. Rest of the package looks ok. +++ 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