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