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=691032 Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(fabian@bernewirel | |ess.net) --- Comment #1 from Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-26 08:56:25 EDT --- Here is the review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > $ grep ^License pyInputStats-0.2.1/PKG-INFO pyinputstats.spec > pyInputStats-0.2.1/PKG-INFO:License: GPLv3 > pyinputstats.spec:License: GPLv2+ [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. > $ wget -O pyInputStats-0.2.1.tar.gz.upstream 'http://launchpad.net/pyinputstats/trunk/1.0/+download/pyInputStats-0.2.1.tar.gz' > $ sha1sum pyInputStats-0.2.1.tar.gz* > 88da239d62b7bc7cb88984b58de5575c0bdcd703 pyInputStats-0.2.1.tar.gz > 88da239d62b7bc7cb88984b58de5575c0bdcd703 pyInputStats-0.2.1.tar.gz.upstream [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] 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. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2948325 [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. > 2948326 buildArch (pyinputstats-0.2.1-1.fc14.src.rpm, noarch): open (x86-07.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed > 2948325 build (dist-f15, pyinputstats-0.2.1-1.fc14.src.rpm) completed successfully [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Summary: The spec looks good, the package builds and works fine. Please update the license and possibly contact upstream to include a COPYING file. -- 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