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: cuetools - Utilities to work with cue and TOC files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435954 ------- Additional Comments From lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx 2008-03-19 10:42 EST ------- REVIEW: MUST ITEMS: + rpmlint silent on every package. + The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [FAIL] 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. + The spec file written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, [petro@host-12-116 SOURCES]$ md5sum cuetools-1.3.1.tar.gz* 45575f7a1bdc6615599fa6cb49845cca cuetools-1.3.1.tar.gz 45575f7a1bdc6615599fa6cb49845cca cuetools-1.3.1.tar.gz.1 [petro@host-12-116 SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiled into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (i386). + No build dependencies. + Package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun with correct syntax. + A package doesn't create directories. + A package doesn't contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files set properly. + A package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + Each package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No large documentation. + The stuff, which a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. [FAIL] Header files must be in a -devel package. + No static libraries. + Packages doesn't containing pkgconfig(.pc) files [FAIL] 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. + Packages does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + Packages doenn't containing GUI applications + Packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. OK. Only 2 things are left: * You must include COPYING file in %docs. * We must decide what to do with devel-files (*.h and *.so)? Upstream doesn't allow us to install them using standard make && make install procedure, so maybe we should leave the ./configure file intact and don't try to provide devel-files at all (as we do now)? All other thins looks good. -- 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