Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887543 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> --- See below - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: no sha256sum, but diff of svn checkout matches. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. Do you plan on building for epel5 too? Otherwise, you can drop the first 2 lines. 2. On versioning, this is really a 'post release snapshot' no? ie, 0.21 was a version as released, but this has some svn commits after this. Really the only way to know for sure is to ask upstream, but if it's a post release snap, I would go with 'N.svn%{svn_rev}%{?dist}' where N is the increasing number for the Fedora package, until 0.22 (or whatever comes out) 3. You might also ask upstream to clarify which version of the GPL they mean and if they want to specify "or later". In the absense of that information, GPL+ should be used. You could also ask them to include a copy of the GPL COPYING file. 4. rpmlint says: Ignore all these: trac-sensitivetickets-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkbox -> check box, check-box, checkbook trac-sensitivetickets-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US viewable -> view able, view-able, viable trac-sensitivetickets-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation trac-sensitivetickets-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checkbox -> check box, check-box, checkbook trac-sensitivetickets-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US viewable -> view able, view-able, viable trac-sensitivetickets-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: trac-sensitivetickets-plugin-0.21.svn12442.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Use %% for macros in "comments": trac-sensitivetickets-plugin.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{svn_rev} trac-sensitivetickets-plugin.src:15: W: macro-in-comment %{svn_rev} None of those are really blockers, although we should make sure the versioning is all figured out before import, so if there's any disagreement about that, we should discuss it before importing. ;) This package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gBJw06PFm3&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review