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: pigment - Media Center Toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233597 jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|lxtnow@xxxxxxxxx |jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx 2007-04-18 02:54 EST ------- okay those -rpath calls are false alarms, running a local build on x86 with check-rpaths doesn't abort. 0.1.5 APPROVED Looks good. I'm going to take assignment of this as the reviewer and flag it as approved. From the discussion on maintainers-list its pretty clear that this GPL exception falls into normal allowed license practices. + All build dependencies listed in BuildRequires, + Packages do not contain any .la libtool archives. + The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. contains shared library as well as python bindings... not strictly a python addon. + MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with GPL with special exception + License field in the package spec is GPL. + The sources used to build the package match the upstream source, http://elisa.fluendo.com/static/download/pigment/pigment-0.1.5.tar.gz md5sum d39000c031e35d5a5835343161ce4bf8 matches included source + rpmlint appears to return cleanly + The spec file name must match the base package %{name} + includes the text of the license(s) in %doc. + The spec file is in english-ese. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The package must successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86 developement using mock + no locales to worry about + ldconfig in %post and %postun. + package not relocatable + owns all directories that it creates. + no duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files set properly. + %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + consistent use of macros + The package contains code, or permissable content. + no doc subpackage. gtk-docs are placed in the -devel package + %doc items do not affect runtime + Header files are in a -devel package. + no statics + -devel package correctly 'Requires: pkgconfig' + library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package. + devel packages requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency + No GUI apps + Doesn't duplicate directory or file ownership afaict + beginning of %install has rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). -- 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