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=748180 Theodore Lee <theo148@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Theodore Lee <theo148@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-14 20:34:55 EST --- Okay, I'll take over this review. MUST Items ========== OK - rpmlint must be run on all rpms $ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm dbus-sharp-glib-devel-0.5.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: E: no-binary dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib dbus-sharp-glib-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. After install: $ rpmlint dbus-sharp-glib dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: E: no-binary dbus-sharp-glib.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. These errors seem to be the usual ones seen with mono packages, nothing significant. OK - Package must meet naming guidelines OK - Spec file name must match base package name OK - Package must meet packaging guidelines OK - Package must meet licensing guidelines OK - License tag must match actual license OK - Any license files must be in %doc OK - Spec file must be in American English OK - Spec file must be legible OK - Sources must match upstream $ sha1sum dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz.fedora bff1d3e8def9f5c7f956adffdef3a860a05e0e95 dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz bff1d3e8def9f5c7f956adffdef3a860a05e0e95 dbus-sharp-glib-0.5.0.tar.gz.fedora OK - Package must build on at least one primary arch OK - Arches that the package doesn't build on must be excluded with a relevant bug In this case mono simply isn't available on some arches, so I don't think this is a blocking issue. OK - All necessary build dependencies must be in BuildRequires N/A - Locales must be handled properly N/A - Binary rpms containing libraries must call ldconfig OK - Package must not bundle system libraries N/A - Relocatable packages must have rationalization OK - Package must own all directories it creates OK - Package must not list a file more than once in %files OK - Files must have correct permissions OK - Macros must be consistent OK - Package must contain code or permissible content N/A - Large documentation files must be in a -doc subpackage OK - %doc files must not affect program operation N/A - Header files must be in a -devel subpackage N/A - Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package OK - -devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - Package must NOT contain any .la libtool archives N/A - Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items ============ N/A - If the package is missing license text in a separate file, the packager should query upstream for it N/A - Description and summary should contain translations if available OK - Package should build in mock OK - Package should build on all supported architectures Koji scratch build seems okay: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3511249 OK - Package should function as described Built and used banshee-2.2 against this, and it seems to be working well. N/A - Scriptlets should be sane N/A - Non-devel subpackages should require the base package with a full version OK - pkgconfig files should be placed appropriately N/A - File dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin should require package instead N/A - Binaries/scripts should have man pages Mono-specific Items =================== OK - DLLs must be registered with gacutil OK - .pc files must be in a -devel package OK - Empty -debuginfo packages must not be built OK - Package must NOT contain any pre-compiled .dll or .exe files OK - Package must NOT contain .dll files from other projects OK - Package should not redefine _libdir Issues ====== 1) There's no link to a tracking bug for the architectures that this package doesn't build on. However, this is something that covers pretty much all mono packages, so I don't think that's too important. 2) The main package description is missing a full stop, and the description for the -devel package should probably mention GLib at some point. None of these issues are blocking, so I think this package can be ACCEPTED. -- 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