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=722249 Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-22 19:40:15 EDT --- + OK - N/A ! Problem ? Not evaluated Required ======== [+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines [+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license [+] License file must be included in %doc [+] The spec file must be written in American English [+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible [+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source [+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture [+] Proper use of ExcludeArch [+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly [+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [+] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package [+] A package must own all directories that it creates directories under this [+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings [+] Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] Each package must consistently use macros [+] The package must contain code, or permissable content [-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage [+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application [-] Header files must be in a -devel package [-] Static libraries must be in a -static package [-] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [-] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [-] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages [+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 Should Items ============ [+] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to include it [-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the package spec if available [+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock [+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures [+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described [-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane [-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg [-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself [-] Should contain 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