Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227103 nsantos@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nsantos@xxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From nsantos@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-16 18:07 EST ------- Link to updated SRPM above is broken... Here's a partial review based on the specfile: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NA * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NA * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock -- 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