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: avr-libc - C library for use with GCC on Atmel AVR microcontrollers https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241279 ------- Additional Comments From mebrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-13 16:57 EST ------- Here is the entire list of MUST items for completeness (including items above which have already been pointed out) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec --> GOOD - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. --> GOOD - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. --> NOT OK: project: modified BSD, package spec: GPL- MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. --> GOOD - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. --> GOOD - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. --> GOOD - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. --> GOOD (md5sum match) - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. --> GOOD - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture --> no exclude-arch, GOOD - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires --> GOOD - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. --> GOOD (no locales) - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. --> GOOD (no shared libs) - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, --> GOOD (not relocatable) - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. --> GOOD (everything under /usr/avr) - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. --> GOOD - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. --> GOOD - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). --> GOOD - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. --> GOOD - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. --> GOOD - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. --> GOOD (-doc subpackage) - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. --> GOOD - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. --> hmm... discuss? - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. --> hmm... discuss? - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files --> GOOD (no pc files) - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. --> GOOD - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} --> GOOD (no -devel package, but maybe need one considering other review items) - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. --> GOOD - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, --> GOOD (no GUI) - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. --> BAD $ rpm -qf /usr/avr avr-binutils- 2.17-3.fc7.x86_64 avr-libc- 1.4.6-1.x86_64 - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} --> GOOD - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. --> GOOD. -- 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