[Bug 240616] Review Request: pixman - pixel manipulation library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: pixman - pixel manipulation library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240616


adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|panemade@xxxxxxxxx          |adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx  2007-07-24 10:33 EST -------
Package Review:
==================================================
----------------------------------
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
----------------------------------
OK, output:
W: pixman no-documentation
W: pixman-devel no-documentation
upstream only has empty files.
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must meet the  Packaging Guidelines.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
----------------------------------
OK (MIT)
Note: Please ask upstream to fix the empty COPYING file
----------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
File exits but empty so OK (not packaged)
----------------------------------
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
----------------------------------
N/A (git snapshot)
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
----------------------------------
OK (Tested on F7 x86_64)
----------------------------------
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch.
----------------------------------
N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
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. 
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of
that specific package.
----------------------------------
OK (not relocateable)
----------------------------------
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines. 
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
----------------------------------
N/A
----------------------------------
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
----------------------------------
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
----------------------------------
OK (builds fine on F7 x86_64)
----------------------------------
SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. 
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this
is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
----------------------------------
OK
----------------------------------
==================================================
Summary:
Package looks ok, some issues have to be fixed 
upstream (empty doc files)
==================================================

############
=> APPROVED!
############


-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]