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: fedorawaves-kdm-theme https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441637 kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-09 11:46 EST ------- MUST Items: + rpmlint output: fedorawaves-kdm-theme.noarch: W: no-documentation harmless, ignoring + named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines + spec file name matches base package name + Packaging Guidelines: + License GPL+ OK, matches actual license + No known patent problems + No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components + Complies with the FHS + proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, BuildRequires (none needed), Summary, Description ! Requires: kde-settings-kdm should be Requires: kdebase-kdm + no non-UTF-8 characters + no documentation relevant to include + nothing to compile, so RPM_OPT_FLAGS are irrelevant + nothing to compile (noarch package), so no debuginfo package + no static libraries nor .la files + no duplicated system libraries + no binaries => no rpaths + no configuration files, so %config guideline doesn't apply + no init scripts, so init script guideline doesn't apply + no GUI executables, so no .desktop file needed + ... and thus no desktop-file-install needed either (KdmGreeterTheme.desktop is not really a .desktop file, it's a theme description) + no timestamp-clobbering file commands (cp -p is being used) + nothing to build, so _smp_mflags are irrelevant + scriptlets are valid + not a web application, so web application guideline doesn't apply + no conflicts + complies with all the legal guidelines + no license in the tarball to include as %doc + no upstream, skipping source matches upstream check + builds on at least one arch (F8 i386) + no known non-working arches, so no ExcludeArch needed + no BuildRequires needed + no translations, so translation/locale guidelines don't apply + no shared libraries, so no ldconfig call needed + package not relocatable + ownership correct (owns package-specific directories, doesn't own directories owned by another package) + no duplicate files in %files + permissions correct, defattr used correctly + %clean section present and correct + macros used where possible + no non-code content + no large documentation files, so no -doc package needed + no %doc files, so no %doc files required at runtime + no header files which would need to be in a -devel subpackage + no static libraries, so no -static package needed + no .pc files, so no Requires: pkgconfig needed + no .so symlinks vs. plugins + no -devel package, so "-devel should require %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" is irrelevant + no .la files + no GUI executables, so no .desktop file needed + buildroot is deleted at the beginning of %install + all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: ! no license file in the tarball + no translations for description and summary provided by upstream * skipping mock test (nothing to build, no BRs needed) * skipping all arch test (it's noarch anyway) * skipping functionality test (already tested, see previous comments) + scriptlets are sane + no subpackages other than -devel, so "Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency." is irrelevant + no .pc files, so "placement of .pc files" is irrelevant + no file dependencies APPROVED, but please change Requires: kde-settings-kdm to Requires: kdebase-kdm after import. -- 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