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=683684 --- Comment #5 from Sergio Belkin <sebelk@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-16 17:51:59 EDT --- Hi Mohamed! (In reply to comment #4) > Great :) > This should be OK. Only one test failed in %check, but it tries to download a > distant archive to be tested. No matter here. > Here is the review. > > MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. > ->OK, no serious warning > > MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > ->OK > > MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. > ->OK > > MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. > ->OK > > MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the > Licensing Guidelines. > ->OK > > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > ->OK > > MUST: 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. > ->OK > > MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. > ->OK > > MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > ->OK > > MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. > ->OK, md5sum = 8297bd906088aedee840a32450efb1a2 > > MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > ->OK > > MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an > architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. > ->N/A > > MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; > inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. > ->NOK: rpm is already required by rpm-build, so it can be removed from the > BuildRequires > > MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > ->N/A > > MUST: 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. > ->N/A > > MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. > ->OK > > MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state > this > fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for > relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is > considered a blocker. > ->N/A > > MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create > a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. > >OK > > MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's > %files listings. > ->OK > > MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with > executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > ->OK > > MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. > ->OK > > MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > ->OK > > MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. > ->N/A > > MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime > of > the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run > properly if it is not present. > ->OK > > MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. > ->N/A > > MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > ->N/A > > MUST: 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. > ->N/A > > MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = > %{version}-%{release}. > ->N/A > > MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed > in the spec if they are built. > ->N/A > > MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, > and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section. > ->N/A > > MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > ->OK > > MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > ->OK > > Two small issues anyway: > * You could remove p7zip from the BuildRequires, since it is already required > by p7zip-plugins OK, I will remove it. > * you could also remove, as said above, rpm from the BR, since it is already > required by rpm-build which is part of the minimum build env. (see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions_2) Oh Thanks point it, I skipped "There is no need to include the following packages *or their dependencies*" > > Anyway this package is APPROVED. I trust you to fix the issues above before > import. :) Thanks Mohamed, in fact I'm fixing it and importing soon :) -- 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