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=652778 Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-27 05:37:09 EST --- + 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: - 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. + final provides and requires are sane: (include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =; rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done manually indented after checking each line. I also remove the rpmlib junk and anything provided by glibc.) [ankur@ankur result]$ review-req-check == kanotf-fonts-20050515-1.fc16.noarch.rpm == Provides: config(kanotf-fonts) = 20050515-1.fc16 font(kedage) font(mallige) kanotf-fonts = 20050515-1.fc16 Requires: /bin/sh /bin/sh config(kanotf-fonts) = 20050515-1.fc16 fontpackages-filesystem == kanotf-fonts-20050515-1.fc16.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: fontpackages-devel SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. - Should build on all supported archs - 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. rpmlint output: [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/kanotf-fonts.spec kanotf-fonts-20050515-1.fc14.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm ../SPECS/kanotf-fonts.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://sourceforge.net/projects/brahmi/files/Brahmi%20OpenType%20Fonts/OpenType%20font%20for%20Kannada%20-%20Kedgae%20and%20Mallige%20Ver%201.0/kanotf.zip <urlopen error timed out> kanotf-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20050515 ['20050515-1.fc16', '20050515-1'] kanotf-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/kanotf-fonts-20050515/readme.txt 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. You forgot to add the release tag in the ChangeLog :) Please do also correct the wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding error. The rest looks okay. Please make these corrections and I'll approve the package Ankur -- 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