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=692069 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-09 12:05:25 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 ^^ Please include debian/copyright in the package's %doc section. Is the README worth including in %docs. + Spec in American English + Spec is legible. + Sources match upstream md5sum: ^^^ git archives, checked with diff: [ankur@ankur pps-tools]$ pwd /home/ankur/dump/pps-tools [ankur@ankur pps-tools]$ diff -ur ../../rpmbuild/SOURCES/pps-tools/ ./ Only in ./: .git - Package needs ExcludeArch + BuildRequires correct - Spec handles locales/find_lang - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. + Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. + Package has a correct %clean section. + Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) ^^ If you're not building for rhel etc., you can get rid of the above 3 portions. + Package is code or permissible content. - Doc subpackage needed/used. + Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. + Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. ^^ Even though there's only one header, I think we should leave it in the -devel package. - 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} ^^ The devel is only a header. No sonames or anything here. Don't think this is required. Need to confirm. - .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. + final provides and requires are sane: == pps-tools-0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17.i686.rpm == Provides: pps-tools = 0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17 pps-tools(x86-32) = 0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17 Requires: /bin/sh libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) rtld(GNU_HASH) == pps-tools-0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17.src.rpm == Provides: Requires: == pps-tools-debuginfo-0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17.i686.rpm == Provides: pps-tools-debuginfo = 0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17 pps-tools-debuginfo(x86-32) = 0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17 Requires: == pps-tools-devel-0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17.i686.rpm == Provides: pps-tools-devel = 0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17 pps-tools-devel(x86-32) = 0-0.1.20100413git74c32c.fc17 Requires: SHOULD Items: + Should build in mock. + Should build on all supported archs ^^ builds on both i386 and x86_64 - Should function as described. - Should have sane scriptlets. + Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. Not required for this package. + Should have dist tag + Should package latest version - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) Issues: 1. Only the license/docs need to be included. -- 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