[Bug 969111] Review Request: libxdiff - Basic functionality to create difference/patches in binary and text

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969111

Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Hi Tom,

It worked now. Reviewed manually + fedora-review tool.

[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libxdiff-1.0-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
          libxdiff-devel-1.0-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm
libxdiff.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionalities ->
functionalists, functionality, functionalist
libxdiff-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint libxdiff-devel libxdiff
libxdiff-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libxdiff.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US functionalities ->
functionalists, functionality, functionalist
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Above warnings can be ignored.

[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines

[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

[OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines

[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

[OK] 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

[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English

[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible

[OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this
task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream
URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for
how to deal with this.

  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
667751e2e11971765a421d8d20e038ee2d4122d784ccf8da479cf6f578252159
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
667751e2e11971765a421d8d20e038ee2d4122d784ccf8da479cf6f578252159

[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture

[OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

[OK] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries

[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings

[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.

[OK] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.

[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.

[OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


[OK] SHOULD: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec
file

[OK] SHOULD: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag

[OK] SHOULD: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

[OK] SHOULD: Buildroot is not present

[OK] SHOULD: Package functions as described.

[OK] SHOULD: Latest version is packaged.

[OK] SHOULD: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)

[OK] SHOULD: Dist tag is present.

[OK] SHOULD: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.

[OK] SHOULD: Uses parallel make.

[OK] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.

[OK] SHOULD: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.

[OK] SHOULD: SourceX is a working URL.

[OK] SHOULD: Spec use %global instead of %define.

Status: 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=gVrNZnT0Sh&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]