https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087893 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> --- APPROVED. Side note: you don't need the %prep and %build placeholders if they're not actually used. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + latest version packaged n/a %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible n/a upstream sources match sources in the srpm + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr n/a package owns all directories it creates n/a no duplicate files in %files + Package perserves timestamps on install + Permissions on files must be set properly + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage n/a files marked %doc should not affect package runtime n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: - if there is no license file, packager should query upstream to include it I don't believe it's necessary and none of the other similar macro rpms provide it either n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a non -devel packages should require fully versioned base n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin n/a Package should have man files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review