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=461429 --- Comment #2 from John Anderson <john.e.anderson@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-22 21:58:40 EDT --- Hello again, I'm doing a preview. This is not a full review, as I am not sponsored yet, but it should help get it in shape. FIX - MUST: rpmlint, zsync.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/zsync-0.5/README OK - MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: package %{name} matches spec in the format %{name}.spec FIX - MUST: Packaging guidlines, zlib is in the source, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries OK - MUST: Fedora approved license FIX - MUST: The License field must match the actual license. It looks like they're actually using Artistic 2.0 OK - MUST: package includes the text of the license(s) in in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK - MUST: Spec file is legible OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source 08beaf3fa95f16d8a2db2f7f3ea21196 OK - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. OK - MUST: No excludes needed FIX - MUST: Dependencies, add zlib to BuildRequires when you patch it to not use the one in the source OK - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK - MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK - MUST: Each package must have a %clean section OK - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros OK - MUST: The package contains code OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files in %doc don't affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives ( once zlib is gone ) OK - MUST: Console app, no .desktop needed OK - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8 OK - SHOULD: Builds in mock OK - SHOULD: The package compiles on all arch OK - SHOULD: Package runs as described So it still needs a little work. Action items: - Can you please check out the license and confirm that it is indeed artistic 2.0? - The one warning on rpmlint as mentioned before - You would have to take care of the zlib situation to get this to pass review Hope this helps! Once again, not a full review. -- 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