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=664221 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|Ready | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-25 02:32:02 EST --- Sorry for long wait - been busy with ARM and other "distractions"... Here is the review: +:ok, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [] MUST: rpmlint output [1] ghc-cautious-file.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ghc-cautious-file.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ghc-cautious-file-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. waived [+] MUST: package named according to Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [2] [+] MUST: meet Packaging Guidelines [+] MUST: Fedora approved license and Licensing Guidelines [+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. [3] [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [4] [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English [5] and legible. [6] [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release (from upstream URL) ca18207cccb0ab7c7c2649133943ccc4 cautious-file-1.0.tar.gz [!] MUST: successfully compile and build into binary rpms on a primary arch [7] Srpm doesn't build in mock/koji though: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3817824 due to missing BR on bytestring. [NA] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [8] [-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires See preceding comment. [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [9] [NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [11] [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [12] [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [13] [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [14] [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [15] [+] MUST: consistently use macros [16] [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] [NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [18] [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [18] [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] [NA] 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 [21] [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [20] [NA] 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. [22] [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [23] [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [29] Please fix the above missing BR when importing. 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