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=462381 manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-21 20:33:48 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type (tag in the spec) :GPLv2 License type (according to source files) :GPLv2+ see issue 1 [x] 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 is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 6552bd0f9bf6c22ed1400c92cace8e2207cb0c74 beediff_1.9_src.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [!] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. see issue 2 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 see issue 3 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on:koji scratch build [?] Package functions as described. [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. Some of the source files (BtStringTool.*, BtToken.h) have no license embedded but those that do specify GPLv2+ as license. Please fix the tag in the spec file and ask the upstream author to add a proper header to all source files. 2. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files: "If upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as <vendor_id>." Therefore you need to add "fedora" as vendor_id (unless the guidelines have changed and this has not been reflected in the wiki) As a side note, I consider a bad habit to use here files in the spec, I prefer to have them listed as SourceN (makes verification and maintenance easier). I will not insist on that however, as guidelines do not say anything about this aspect. 3. The make step does not use the SMP flags. Please either add a comment why this is not wanted or fix the spec to use them. -- 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