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: andika-fonts - Andika SIL fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452663 ------- Additional Comments From mnowak@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-13 12:22 EST ------- MUST Items: PASS - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. PASS - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . PASS - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format PASS - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . PASS - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . PASS - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. PASS - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) ... PASS - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. PASS - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read PASS - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - did sha1sum; sources matches NA - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. NA - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, NA - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires NA - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. NA - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files NA - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state PASS - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. PASS - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. PASS - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with PASS - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} PASS - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the PASS - MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. NA - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. PASS - MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. NA - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. NA - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NA - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files NA - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix NA - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require NA - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. NA - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file PASS - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. PASS - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} PASS - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - UTF8 + ASCII (sub-set of UTF*) SHOULD Items: NA - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) NA - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain NA - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - no deps - no mock PASS - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. PASS - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. - took a look via gnome-font-viewer PASS - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. NA - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. NA - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) NA - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, Overall: PASS -- 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