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=701450 Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx |fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-05 08:52:48 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. The sources (*.py) mention GPLv2+ (like the .spec), but the PKG-INFO ist just GPL. There is no COPYING-file, assuming the source is correct and the license is 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. > $ sha1sum notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz SOURCES/notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz > 4b638c53f86ece358621df72e2e0b3472fd626fb notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz > 4b638c53f86ece358621df72e2e0b3472fd626fb SOURCES/notmyname-pygtkChart-beta-0-g8a56364.tar.gz [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. tested local mock (f14) and koji (f15): - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3111957 [+] 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 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=3111957 [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Summary: All fine. Note that you have to contact upstream to include a COPYING file and have them update the PKG-INFO (Home-page and license) as well. Review passed and setting fedora-review+. Re-assigning to you (Fabian) now so that you can request fedora-cvs. -- 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