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=719757 --- Comment #4 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-04 04:07:13 EDT --- Hi Jerry, looking pretty good. Just a few questions below: Required ======== + - OK - - N/A X - attention ? - comment please [+] 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 unless building for F12 and below or EPEL [?] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines *** Just need to clarify the multiple licenses in the SPEC file. May also need to reflect in the relevant %file section (ie http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios [+] 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 *** b108de2f4a8c4ecac1ff76a6d282946fd3bf1466a126cf5344723955f305ec8e OK [+] 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 *** You have separated the *_debug.so files out into a separate 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 [?] Packaged according to Fedora OCAML packaging guidelines **** Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-devel in package ocaml-apron-devel? Similiarly -debug packages. see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml#-devel_subpackage 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 rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*apron*.rpm apron.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US invariants -> invariant, in variants, in-variants apron.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US invariants -> invariant, in variants, in-variants apron-debug.x86_64: W: no-documentation apron-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/apron-0.9.10/newpolka/mf_qsort.c ocaml-apron-debug.x86_64: W: no-documentation 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. [+] 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 Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-debug in package ocaml-apron-debug? [-] 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