[Bug 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618





------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx  2008-07-12 10:03 EST -------
Formal review:

OK  | MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package…
rpmlint *rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK  | MUST: The package must be named according to the Package…
OK  | MUST: The spec file name must match the base package…
NOK | MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines…

There's nothing terribly wrong with the package, but our font guidelines have
evolved a little since it was created, and it's time to re-sync it with the
fonts spec template in rpmdevtools. (since it's unlikely a new upstream
version will ever cause a package refresh)

I like to see a minimal diff when I compare a font spec to the current
template in meld.

OK  | MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved…
OK  | MUST: The License field in the package spec file must…
OK  | MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the…
OK  | 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… 
OK  | MUST: The package must successfully compile and build…
N/A | MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build 
OK  | MUST: All build dependencies must be listed…
N/A | MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly…
N/A | MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared…
N/A | MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable…
OK  | MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates
OK  | MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files 
OK  | MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
OK  | MUST: Each package must have a %clean section
OK  | MUST: Each package must consistently use macros
OK  | MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable
N/A | MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc 
N/A | MUST: If a package includes something as %doc…
N/A | MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A | MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A | MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must…
N/A | MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix…
N/A | MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must…
N/A | MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, 
N/A | MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include…
OK  | MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already
OK  | MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST…
OK  | MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
N/A | SHOULD: If the source package does not include license 
-   | SHOULD: The description and summary section … translations…
OK  | SHOULD: The package builds in mock
-   | SHOULD: The package builds on all supported architectures
OK  | SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package…
OK  | SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane…
N/A | SHOULD: Subpackages other than devel should usually require base…
N/A | SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on…
N/A | SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of shortlist…

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]