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=691894 --- Comment #2 from elad <el.il@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-30 02:30:47 EDT --- + = OK - = NA ? = issue + Package meets naming guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistent 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. (looks like bogus output to me): pyrit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pre -> per, ore, pee pyrit.x86_64: W: private-shared-object-provides /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/cpyrit/_cpyrit_cpu.so _cpyrit_cpu.so()(64bit) pyrit.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pyrit 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. + final provides and requires are sane 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.I'm not sure, probably I'm wrong, but GPLv3 with openssl exception is not listed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Not an issue, but I think you should fix it: The hyphen after "many-core" in the description is unnecessary. Also I think you should mention that this package only provide CPU support, and not GPUGPU (there are CUDA and OpenCL support sub-packages available upstream, but can not be used in fedora because no free driver currently implements those features) -- 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