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=675388 Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege@xxxxxxx> 2011-02-27 23:36:13 EST --- Ada guide is accepted. Continue. Note: there is new spec update, not announced by Pavel, new srpm at http://landgraf.fedorapeople.org/packages/requested/xmlada/xmlada-3.2.1-8.fc14.src.rpm ==== Review ==== + rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. + The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. + The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. ==== + With new Ada guide too. + The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. GPLv2+ + The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. + If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be 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. + All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines. * 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. Package contain symlinks in %{_libdir}. + Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + 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. + Permissions on files must be set properly. + Each package must consistently use macros. + The package must contain code, or permissable content. + If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files must be in a -devel package. + 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. + In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} + Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. ====== Approved. NB! I will not be in touch for 3 weeks (untill 22 of March). If some questions arised, someone is wellcomed to drop my assigment and rerunning of review. -- 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