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=720040 Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-14 10:39:35 EDT --- Review: + OK - NA ? ISSUE + Package meets naming and packaging guidelines + Spec file matches base package name. + Spec has consistant 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: [ankur@ankur rpmbuild]$ md5sum pugixml-1.0.tar.gz SOURCES/pugixml-1.0.tar.gz 3c191771b942e805fe36d6a00b2655f8 pugixml-1.0.tar.gz 3c191771b942e805fe36d6a00b2655f8 SOURCES/pugixml-1.0.tar.gz - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + 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. [ankur@ankur SRPMS]$ rpmlint pugixml-1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm ../SRPMS/pugixml-1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. +- final provides and requires are sane: [ankur@ankur result]$ review-req-check == pugixml-1.0-1.fc16.i686.rpm == Provides: libpugixml.so.1.0 pugixml = 1.0-1.fc16 pugixml(x86-32) = 1.0-1.fc16 Requires: /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.11) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) rtld(GNU_HASH) == pugixml-1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: cmake == pugixml-debuginfo-1.0-1.fc16.i686.rpm == Provides: pugixml-debuginfo = 1.0-1.fc16 pugixml-debuginfo(x86-32) = 1.0-1.fc16 Requires: == pugixml-devel-1.0-1.fc16.i686.rpm == Provides: pugixml-devel = 1.0-1.fc16 pugixml-devel(x86-32) = 1.0-1.fc16 Requires: libpugixml.so.1.0 pugixml = 1.0-1.fc16 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. defattr is no longer needed, you can remove it :) Thank you for an *excellent* package! XXX APPROVED XXX -- 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