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=466795 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-17 05:42:45 EDT --- REVIEW: MUST Items: + rpmlint is silent + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (GPLv2). + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [petro@host-12-116 SOURCES]$ md5sum *tgz* a1b28e3ae6360c78eec36a019ca9f9e0 EnemyTerritory2.map.tgz a1b28e3ae6360c78eec36a019ca9f9e0 EnemyTerritory2.map.tgz.from_srpm 291cd52130399d096820c4b7be5c0b79 grass.map.tgz 291cd52130399d096820c4b7be5c0b79 grass.map.tgz.from_srpm 15664bb7e4a5cba8dff4fd0c2312691d greenlands.map.tgz 15664bb7e4a5cba8dff4fd0c2312691d greenlands.map.tgz.from_srpm 422adf97b62b52bd53247378b71c238e obese.map.tgz 422adf97b62b52bd53247378b71c238e obese.map.tgz.from_srpm 2cc7cecc8d96d0922fa53b5789e32636 plains.map.tgz 2cc7cecc8d96d0922fa53b5789e32636 plains.map.tgz.from_srpm ca7ae0e033458569086baa89b25233f5 turbo_grounds.map.tgz ca7ae0e033458569086baa89b25233f5 turbo_grounds.map.tgz.from_srpm b74176afba2ddb0cce0012b42e2d8e16 wargrounds.map.tgz b74176afba2ddb0cce0012b42e2d8e16 wargrounds.map.tgz.from_srpm 24a63c1d1682ff918ff0bab5b2112fdb wetlands03.map.tgz 24a63c1d1682ff918ff0bab5b2112fdb wetlands03.map.tgz.from_srpm [petro@host-12-116 SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture (x86). + No additional build dependencies. + No need to deal with locales + Does not contain shared libraties + The package does not designed to be relocatable + A package owns all directories that it creates. + A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . + The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . + The package contains code, or permissable content. + No large documentation files + The package does not include anything as %doc + No header files + No static libraries + The package does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files + The package does not contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) + No devel packages + The package does not contain any .la libtool archives + Not a GUI application + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . + All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. This package is 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