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=463761 Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-25 06:47:40 EDT --- + GOOD: rpmlint is silent on both source and binary package. + GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - BAD: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs there is no email address in %changelog -- all required formats of the changelog record include email address + GOOD: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . + GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + GOOD: LICENSE file is in %doc. + GOOD: The spec file is written in American English. + GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible. + GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. f2014b4076f5e9cc9addcf29f662f344 + GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Koji scratch build is http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=843514 + GOOD: noarch, so it compiles everywhere. + GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. No locale support. + GOOD: no libraries + GOOD: not relocatable + GOOD: A package owns all directories that it creates. Follows perl guidelines. + GOOD: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly. + GOOD: Each package have a %clean section. + GOOD: Each package consistently use macros. + GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content. + GOOD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage. + GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. + GOOD: No header files. + GOOD: No static libraries. + GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + GOOD: The package does not contain library files with a suffix. + GOOD: No devel packages. + GOOD: No .la libtool archives. + GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications. + GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages. + GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install + GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. + SHOULD: Includes license text. Attaching patch for the SPEC file -- when this is applied, APPROVED. -- 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