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=469548 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-21 05:17:29 EDT --- Hi! I promised to make yet another review... Summary: OK besides some missing document files. A question mark on all the compiler warnigs when building, though. MUST stuff: rpmlint must be run on every package... - OK (No errors or warnings on srpm or spec file.) The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . - OK The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, - OK The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . - OK. The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license... - OK The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - OK (some files have GPLv+ notices, but GPLv2 is the common denominator). The text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc - OK The spec file for the package MUST be legible. - OK The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source - OK (ebdb2a03302648c939ac965617de2889) The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms. - OK, on my Fedora 9/X86_64 box. Lots of compiler warnings " warning: pointer targets in assignment differ in signedness" while building." for constructs with a short and a literal #define int. Seems acceptable to me. (Upstream report?) All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires - OK (since mock is OK, see below) The spec file MUST handle locales properly. - OK Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files - NA If the package is designed to be relocatable... - NA A package must own all directories that it creates - NOK. The %doc section lists Documentation/*.html Documentation/FAQ but these are not present at all in the generated RPM. A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - OK Permissions on files must be set properly - OK Each package must have a %clean section, rm -rf %{buildroot} - OK Each package must consistently use macros... - OK The package must contain code, or permissable content. - OK Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage - TBD (Havn't seen those HTML files yet). If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present - OK Header files must be in a -devel package. - NA Static libraries must be in a -static package. - NA Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must... - NA If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1 - NA If a package contains library files with a suffix... - NA devel packages must require the base package using... - NA Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives - OK Packages containing GUI applications... - NA (ncurses apps are not considered being graphical) Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages - OK At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} - OK All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - OK SHOULD - The upstream license file (GPLv2) is present. - Localized descriptions are not available what I can see. - Builds OK in mock, on a Fedora-9/x86_64 configuration - There are no scriptlets. - All apps works to the point of a help message or an initial ncurses screen. - There are no subpackages, pkgconfig .pc file or file deps. -- 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