https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970009 --- Comment #26 from Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to David Woodhouse from comment #25) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== MUST items ===== > > C/C++: > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. > [x]: Package contains no static executables. > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > > Generic: > [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in stoken- > devel , stoken-libs , stoken-cli , stoken-gui > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. > [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [x]: update-desktop-database is invoked when required > [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. > [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the > beginning of %install. > [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there > is > such a file. > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. > [x]: 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 is included in %doc. > [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't > work. > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. > [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist > [x]: Package is not relocatable. > [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec. > [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least > one > supported primary architecture. > [x]: Package installs properly. > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. > > > I would prefer to see BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libtomcrypt) > pkgconfig(gtk+-2.0) instead of the package names libtomcrypt-devel and > gtk2-devel. Done. > In fact, I'd much rather see pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0) and it doesn't look > particularly hard, but neither of those observations make it a review > failure. Looking into it, is not my domain of expertise and could be good for learning on something simple like this gui. I will post something here before asking for fedora-cvs?. > Review passed; thanks for contributing to Fedora. Thank you very much as well for all your contributions :) -- 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=u2chF3dqXK&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review