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=785560 Guillermo Gómez <guillermo.gomez@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(guillermo.gomez@g | |mail.com) | --- Comment #6 from Guillermo Gómez <guillermo.gomez@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-01 20:25:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > Review summary: > > - Missing dependency rubygem(tidy_ffi) ? > - I'm not sure if you are following packaging guidelines with regards to > version constrains on the gemdeps > - Package looks OK to me otherwise > > Legend > > + OK > - Not Applicable, ignored > ? Still under Review > > [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build > produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] > [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines > . > [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . > [?] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines . > [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. [3] > [+] 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 must be included in %doc.[4] > [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] > [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] > [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > [?] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on > at least one primary architecture. [7] > [-] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an > architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in > bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on > that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the > corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] > [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for > any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; > inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. > [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] > [-] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library > files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must > call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] > [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] > [-] MUST: 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is > considered a blocker. [12] > [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. [13] > [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec > file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific > situations)[14] > [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. [15] > [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] > [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] > [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The > definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not > restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] > [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the > runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must > run properly if it is not present. [18] > [-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] > [-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] > [-] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. > libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in > a -devel package. [19] > [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} [21] > [-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be > removed in the spec if they are built.[20] > [-] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop > file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need > a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. > [22] > [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with > any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you > feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another > package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23] > [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] > > [-] 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. > [25] > [-] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [26] > [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] > [-] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. [28] > [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A > package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > [-] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is > vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] > [-] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] > call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] > [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] > [-] MUST: 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is > considered a blocker. [12] > [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. [13] > [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec > file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific > situations)[14] > [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. [15] > [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] > [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] > [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The > definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not > restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] > [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the > runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must > run properly if it is not present. [18] > [-] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] > [-] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] > [-] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. > libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in > a -devel package. [19] > [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} [21] > [-] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be > removed in the spec if they are built.[20] > [-] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop > file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the > %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need > a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. > [22] > [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with > any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you > feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another > package owns, then please present that at package review time. [23] > [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] > > [-] 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. > [25] > [-] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file > should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. > [26] > [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] > [-] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all > supported architectures. [28] > [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A > package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > [-] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is > vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] > [-] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] Thank u very much for reviewing, i'll address any issues as soon as i can, but clearly i made a mistake with missing dependency, so i'll take care about that first . -- 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