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=726210 --- Comment #4 from Steve Traylen <steve.traylen@xxxxxxx> 2011-08-09 03:11:56 EDT --- Hi Tim, I had already taken for review? Not to worry, here is my review I did last night I did match for the md5sum. Here's my text anyway, I just planned to check it vaguely worked as well: Package Review ============== freewrl - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726210 8th August 2011 Builds okay in mock f16. Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Based on tar ball name, and a pre-release. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. I thought BuildRequires should now have _isa tag, see below. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: [x] Rpmlint output: [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) No builidroot required these days. [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. LGPLv3+ [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Font files , see below. [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ md5sum freewrl-1.22.12_pre2.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/freewrl-1.22.12_pre2.tar.bz2 e9baa64e551483dbfcb21e879fdf0d8e freewrl-1.22.12_pre2.tar.bz2 e9baa64e551483dbfcb21e879fdf0d8e ../SOURCES/freewrl-1.22.12_pre2.tar.bz2 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR: [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. But see comment below about %{_isa} [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Not needed anymore. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. But see comment below. [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. There's a mozilla plugin so fine. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [-] Package functions as described. [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. I thought e.g. BuildRequires: zlib-devel should now be zlib-devel%{?_isa} but now looking at the guidelines I look to be wrong. 2. appleOSX/OSX_Specific/fonts cotains fonts and a license but you are the expert on this. If they are not actually used in the build and distributed it's more obvious if you can rm -rf them in %prep. 3. Requires: pkgconfig, this is normally auto determined anyway for new systems so is probably not needed. -- 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