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=728256 Guillermo Gómez <guillermo.gomez@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Guillermo Gómez <guillermo.gomez@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-23 09:51:34 EST --- Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated [x] : MUST - Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [x] : MUST - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-] : MUST - Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x] : MUST - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. NOTE: not a blocker, but i would suggest to get rid of the epoch field. Its not needed and would simply naming the package (this is a brand new package, please adjust changelog if done) [x] : MUST - Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x] : MUST - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. [x] : MUST - Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] : MUST - Package contains no bundled libraries. [x] : MUST - Changelog in prescribed format. [x] : MUST - Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x] : MUST - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x] : MUST - Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] : MUST - Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x] : MUST - Permissions on files are set properly. [x] : MUST - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] : MUST - Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [-] : MUST - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] : MUST - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-] : MUST - License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x] : MUST - Package consistently uses macros. instead of hard-coded directory names. [x] : MUST - Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [-] : MUST - Package does not generates any conflict. [-] : MUST - Package does not contains kernel modules. [x] : MUST - Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] : MUST - Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] : MUST - Package installs properly. [-] : MUST - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x] : MUST - Package is not relocatable. [x] : MUST - Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x] : MUST - Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] : MUST - File names are valid UTF-8. [x] : SHOULD - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock/koji. [x] : SHOULD - Dist tag is present. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x] : SHOULD - SourceX is a working URL. [x] : SHOULD - Spec use %global instead of %define. [x] : SHOULD - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x] : SHOULD - Latest version is packaged. [x] : SHOULD - Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x] : SHOULD - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x] : SHOULD - Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x] : SHOULD - %check is present and all tests pass. NOTE: test passes 100% in koji but some tests fails in my station, there has to be some test dependencies hiden. [x] : SHOULD - Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. Toshio, i think this one is clean enough in order to sponsor Emanuel. 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