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=811732 --- Comment #7 from Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-03 13:46:17 EDT --- 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] N/A SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26] N/A SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] Check SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [28] Check SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Unknown - Unable to check SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29] N/A SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [21] N/A SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30] N/A SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [31] N/A SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32] N/A -- 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