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: yum-presto - Yum plugin to download deltarpms rather than full rpms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234488 ------- Additional Comments From tla@xxxxxxxxx 2007-04-03 06:48 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) * summary and description fine * correct buildroot * %{?dist} is used * license text included in package and marked with %doc * package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X changelog format fine (see earlier bug comments) * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License used and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires( * Source match upstream $ md5sum yum-presto-0.3.3.tar.bz2 fd1984365bdbe61aca8114ab47eccefa yum-presto-0.3.3.tar.bz2 $ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/yum-presto-0.3.3.tar.bz2 fd1984365bdbe61aca8114ab47eccefa rpmbuild/SOURCES/yum-presto-0.3.3.tar.bz2 * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * config files uses %config(noreplace) * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * no %makeinstall * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * no locale data * no cp usage so no need to worry about -p * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions fine ? %defattrs present - should it be %defattr(-, root, root, -) * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs $ rpm -q --requires -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/yum-presto-0.3.3-1.noarch.rpm config(yum-presto) = 0.3.3-1 deltarpm >= 3.4 python >= 2.4 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 yum >= 3.0 $ rpm -q --provides -p rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/yum-presto-0.3.3-1.noarch.rpm config(yum-presto) = 0.3.3-1 yum-presto = 0.3.3-1 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs - see previous bug comments SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 ? package should build in mock - I haven't tried, but I don't think it'll be a problem -- 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