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 Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx |fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-25 11:41:57 EDT --- @ Debarshi: Sorry for "stealing" your review, but I promised to finish John's pre-review for educational purposes before I sponsor him. I hope you don't mind. @ John: Sorry I missed your review because you CC'ed me after you did it. Most things look good so far, nevertheless here is a complete re-review. Here we co REVIEW FOR 180523f1a837f61076563cef5929f72d zsync-0.5-1.fc9.src.rpm FIX - MUST: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/zsync-* zsync.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/zsync-0.5/README 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Although this is minor please fix with iconv as John said in comment #1 OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec FIX - MUST: The package does not meet the Packaging Guidelines - the package builds against the zlib in the source, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries - The timestamp of the source is no preserved, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps - NEWS is missing from %doc OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (Artistic License v2) and meets the Licensing Guidelines FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not match the actual license. Should be "Artistic 2.0+" instead of "Artistic clarified" (+ comes from the "or any later version..."-statement in the headers of the sources) OK - MUST: The source package includes the text of the license in its own file, and it is included in %doc OK - MUST: The spec file is written in American English OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by md5sum 08beaf3fa95f16d8a2db2f7f3ea21196 OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on i386 OK - MUST: The package has no known ExcludeArches OK - MUST: No build dependencies except for those from the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: No locales that need to be handled with %find_lang OK - MUST: No shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, no need to call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates (only %{_docdir}/zsync-0.5) OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly, %files section includes a %defattr(...) line OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT FIX - MUST: The package does not consistently use macros. Use http://zsync.moria.org.uk/download/zsync-%{version}.tar.bz2 as SourceURL because then you only need to change the version tag on updates OK - MUST: The package contains code, no permissable content OK - MUST: No large documentation files for a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application OK - MUST: No header files that need to be in a -devel package OK - MUST: No static libraries that need a -static package OK - MUST: Packages does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files must, no need to require pkgconfig OK - MUST: The Package does not contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: No GUI application, no need for a %{name}.desktop file OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK - MUST: The package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT at the beginning of %install OK - MUST: All filenames in the package are be valid UTF-8 OK - SHOULD: The package builds in mock OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described OK - SHOULD: The package contains the latest stable release of the application NEEWSWORK Please fix all issued and then I will approve the package. -- 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