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=802037 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-03-18 11:27:39 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A + = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [+]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [+]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [+]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [+]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [+]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [-]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [+]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. There it is module. ==== Generic ==== [+]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [+]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [+]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [+]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [+]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5 [+]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [+]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [+]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [+]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [+]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [+]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [+]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [+]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [+]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [+]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [+]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [+]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [+]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [+]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [-]: 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. [+]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [+]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [+]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [+]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [+]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [+]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [+]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [+]: MUST Package installs properly. [-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint php-pecl-amqp-1.0.1-2.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint php-pecl-amqp-1.0.1-2.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint php-pecl-amqp-debuginfo-1.0.1-2.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [+]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/pasha/SOFT/Review/php-pecl-amqp/802037/amqp-1.0.1.tgz : MD5SUM this package : d5b4a85551a03e0754c6cf01a5ad5200 MD5SUM upstream package : d5b4a85551a03e0754c6cf01a5ad5200 [+]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [+]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [+]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [+]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [+]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+]: 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. [+]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [+]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [+]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [+]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [+]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [+]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [+]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [+]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [+]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [+]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins: Package is FINE. 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