https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499 --- Comment #20 from Jiri Popelka <jpopelka@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= [!]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in netresolve-core, netresolve-compat, netresolve-backends-compat, netresolve-backends-aresdns, netresolve- backends-avahi, netresolve-backends-ubdns See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries [!]: 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 %license. Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: baskends/asyncns.c is LGPLv2+ licensed [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Note: you need %license COPYING in each %files section (except the main package and -tools/-compat subpackages AFAICT) [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: It'd better to replace for example - Requires: netresolve-core + Requires: netresolve-core%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} (the same for all subpackages) ===== 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]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. baskends/asyncns.c is LGPLv2+ licensed [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. you need %license COPYING in each %files section (except the main package and -tools/-compat subpackages AFAICT) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane. [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. It'd better to replace for example - Requires: netresolve-core + Requires: netresolve-core%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} (for all subpackages) [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. -- 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