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=683591 Denis Arnaud <denis.arnaud_fedora@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|ERRATA | Keywords| |Reopened --- Comment #17 from Denis Arnaud <denis.arnaud_fedora@xxxxxxx> 2011-10-13 04:15:35 EDT --- ======== Formal Review ======== XX: Some work could be performed, optionally. OK - 1. rpmlint returns neither warning nor error OK - 2. Package name ('tclap') is fine and matches the spec file name. OK - 3. Packaging guidelines are met. OK - 4. License: MIT, which is Fedora approved. Indeed, the text of the COPYING file is exactly the same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License. Every source file references the COPYING file and repeats the disclaimer of the MIT license. The spec file references correctly the MIT license and the dedicated COPYING file is included in the %doc part for all the sub-packages. OK - 5. The spec file is legible and written in American English. OK - 6. The source file, namely tclap-1.2.0.tar.gz, is the right one. Its MD5SUM is: f6ea7c05ef62f920d30e4bde5ee3ec8c XX - 7. The package builds cleanly, at least on x86_64 (and Fedora 15). There are a few warnings, reported by both the C++ compiler and Doxygen. Those warnings could be reported upstream. OK - 8. BuildRequires are fine. OK - 9. There is no locale. All the filenames are composed of pure ASCII text. OK - 10. There is neither shared library nor bundle copy of system library. The package is not designed to be relocatable. OK - 11. The package owns all the directories it creates. OK - 12. The package does not mention files more than once, except for the basic documentation (license text). OK - 13. File permissions are set correctly. OK - 14. The use of macros is consistent, e.g. %{buildroot}. The %{optflags} macro is not explicitly used, but configure and make correctly take it into account. OK - 15. The package contains only source code and permissable content. OK - 16. The HTML documentation (generated by Doxygen) goes into a dedicated -doc sub-package. That latter does not affect the runtime library. OK - 17. Header files are in the dedicated -devel sub-package. Moreover, as there is neither library nor binary, the main package is empty (it contains only the basic documentation). See also http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2011-July/007865.html The -devel sub-package correctly requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency. SHOULDs: -------- OK - 18. Upstream includes a separate file for the license text, namely COPYING. OK - 19. No translation of description and summary is available. OK - 20. mock builds cleanly. The package is noarch. OK - 21. The package contains a few unit tests, showing that it functions as described. OK - 22. There is no scriptlet. OK - 23. pkgconfig is placed within the dedicated -devel sub-package. See also item #17 above. OK - 24. There is no dependency outside of standard Fedora directories. OK - 25. The package does contain neither script/binary nor library. No man page is therefore required. =========== End of Formal Review ========== ==> APPROVED -- 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