[Bug 449879] Review Request: Zile - Zile Is Lossy Emacs

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449879





--- Comment #5 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx>  2008-08-13 15:33:47 EDT ---
MUST Items: 

OK - rpmlint is clean
OK - follows Naming Guidelines
OK - spec file is named as %{name}.spec

xx - package does not meet Packaging Guidelines
    + According to
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo you
      you need to have:
      'Requires(post): info'
      'Requires(preun): info'
    + To preserve timestamps you could consider using:
      make install INSTALL="%{__install} -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
    + According to
      https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation the
      INSTALL file should not be distributed.

xx - Fedora approved license and meets Licensing Guidelines
    + Wrong value of License field.

xx - License field meets actual license
    + It should be GPLv3+ instead of GPLv3, since the license notice in the
      sources say:
      "GNU Zile is free software; ...
      under the terms of the GNU General Public License ...
      ... ; either version 3, or (at your option)
      any later version."

OK - upstream license file included in %doc
OK - spec file uses American English
OK - spec file is legible
OK - sources match upstream sources
OK - package builds successfully
OK - ExcludeArch not needed
OK - build dependencies correctly listed
OK - no locales
OK - no shared libraries
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - file and directory ownership
OK - no duplicates in %file
OK - file permissions set properly
OK - %clean present

xx - macros used consistently
    + Apart from one place  in the %files stanza you have used %{name} instead
      of zile. Please remove the inconsistency.

OK - contains code and permissable content
OK - -doc is not needed
OK - contents of %doc does not affect the runtime
OK - no header files
OK - no static libraries
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no library files
OK - -devel is not needed
OK - no libtool archives
OK - %{name}.desktop file not needed
OK - does not own files or directories owned by other packages
OK - buildroot correctly prepped
OK - all file names valid UTF-8

SHOULD Items:

OK - upstream provides license text
xx - no translations for description and summary
OK - package builds in mock successfully
OK - package builds on all supported architectures
OK - package functions as expected
OK - scriptlets are sane
OK - subpackages are not needed
OK - no pkgconfig files
OK - no file dependencies

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
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]