Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: cscope https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225668 nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version|15.5 |15.5-15.2.fc7 ------- Additional Comments From nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-01 15:28 EST ------- - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Check, rpmlint passes cscope-15.5-15.2.%{dist} with no output - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Check - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec Check - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Check - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Check. BSD license - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Check - 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. Check - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. Check - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW] http://www.ioccc.org/). Check - 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. Check - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Check - 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 needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x86, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-x64, [WWW] FE-ExcludeArch-ppc N.A. Package builds on all supported arches - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Check. - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A. cscope does not support locales. - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. N/A. No shared libraries included. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review