[Bug 971049] Review Request: davix - Toolkit for Http-based file management

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971049

Alejandro Alvarez <alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@xxxxxxx> changed:

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

--- Comment #8 from Alejandro Alvarez <alejandro.alvarez.ayllon@xxxxxxx> ---
MUST
====

[OK] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[OK] Package does not use a name that already exist.
[OK] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[OK] Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[OK] Changelog in prescribed format.
[OK] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
[OK] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[OK] The spec file must be written in American English.
[OK] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[--] If a rename, provides/obsoletes is specified.
[--] The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[OK] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the
dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[OK] 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] -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[OK] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[--] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[OK] Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[OK] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.

[OK] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

[OK] The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[OK] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[OK] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
[OK] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[--] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
[OK] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[OK] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory.

[OK] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[--] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package.
[OK] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[OK] Permissions on files must be set properly.

[OK] Each package must consistently use macros.
[--] No external kernel modules
[OK] No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
[OK] No need for external bits
[OK] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[OK] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
[OK] %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

   
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags

[OK] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[--] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[OK] Package installs properly.

SHOULD
======
[--] All patches have an upstream bug link or comment
[OK] The source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream.
[OK] No PreReq
[OK] %makeinstall is not used
[OK] Timestamp is preserved
[OK] Parallel make
[OK] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully
versioned dependency.
[--] 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.
[OK] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files should be in a -devel pkg
[OK] The package builds in mock.
[OK] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[OK] The package functions as described.
[OK] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[FAILED] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts

    davix include a set of binaries with no man pages
    (Will wait for upstream)

[--] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

Just two more things:

The doc package should go into the group Documentation
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation

And it would probably be a good idea to remove the dependency on the main
package. Most *-doc packages do not depend on it (you may want only the
documentation).

But you can do that once you import your package. Other than that, it looks
good to me.

-- 
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=sl3DHzEbAV&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]