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: imsettings - Delivery framework for general Input Method configuration https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449927 petersen@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |petersen@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From petersen@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-12 04:22 EST ------- Taking this review. Here is my review: +:ok, ?:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. See above. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] 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. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 364c8e176bd26008c9c12f8978ed4379 imsettings-0.101.0.tar.bz2 [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [+] 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. [=] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Just wondering if the xfce subpackage should explicitly require libxfce4mcs for %{_libdir}/xfce4/mcs-plugins/, but I don't think it is a blocker given that it is already implicitly required. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [-] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [+] MUST: 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. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} See above. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. I haven't been time to rebuild im-chooser yet to test this package. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. -- 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