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: XGrep - A grep-like utility for XML files. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=291191 ------- Additional Comments From jhrozek@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-09-15 13:11 EST ------- Hello, I had a quick look at your package (not an official review, just to ease the work of the real reviewer), here are the results: Key: - = does not apply for this package x = OK ! = Problem === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - the Source0 tag is wrong. It should include full URL to the sources [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: x86 [x] Rpmlint output: -clean [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: [x] 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 i [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : MD5SUM upstream package: [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. - missing libxml2-devel [-] The spec file handles locales properly. - no locales [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: RHEL5 i686 [not tested] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: x86 [x] Package functions as described. - tested only very basic functions [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. does not rebuild in mock because of missing BR libxml2-devel 2. does not include full source URL -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review