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=712624 --- Comment #11 from Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-05 10:34:16 EDT --- Ok, here's the formal review. Please ask questions as I still haven't done a lot of these and it's possible I got something wrong :) +: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clairification needed N: not applicable MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: No major issues. [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [=] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: LGPLv2+ [-] license field matches the actual license: After more formal review the most authorative information I could find in the source was COPYING and COPYING.LIB. I think the spec should be updated to LGPLv2+ per Fedora Licensing requirements: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing. [N] license file is included in %doc [+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum "33a0f8659909426c67bebc10bd61b1d0" for both. [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F14 x86_64 and F15 i686 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [+] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [N] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [+] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8 SHOULD: [=] query upstream for license text [N] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [+] package builds on all supported arches [+] package functions as described: Ran binary and help was displayed [+] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [N] file dependencies versus package dependencies [N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts -- 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