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=749757 Thibault North <thibault.north@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Thibault North <thibault.north@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-11 09:26:01 EST --- Thanks for these updates. Adding the "should" items: # SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. NA # SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. NA # SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. NO:as clxclient-devel didn't reach the repos yet, mock fails. But rpmbuild -ba works with this dependency, so I am pretty confident that there won't be any issues on that side. # SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK # SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. OK # SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. NA # SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. NA # SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. NA # SHOULD: 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. NA # SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Doc added. >I'm not getting the URL timeouts here so I think it may be a false positive Yes. All issues have been fixed, therefore the package is 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