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: merkaartor - openstreetmap editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445151 limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-24 16:17 EST ------- - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Multiple errors like the following: merkaartor-debuginfo.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/merkaartor/Interaction/CreateAreaInteraction.cpp The file is installed with executable permissions, but was identified as one that probably should not be executable. Verify if the executable bits are desired, and remove if not. Check the permissions on the source code in the tarball. If they're executable, correct this in the spec to silence this warning. - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . Good. - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines . Good. - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . Good. - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . Good. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Change license tag to GPLv2+ - 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. Good. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. Good. - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). Good. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. md5 matches. - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Builds great here. - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 N/A More to come. . . -- 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