[Bug 772710] Review Request: pkpgcounter - Computes number of pages or quantity of ink needed to print documents
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jan 20 17:01:36 UTC 2012
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=772710
Tim Waugh <twaugh at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Tim Waugh <twaugh at redhat.com> 2012-01-20 12:01:31 EST ---
[ OK ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary
rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package
Naming Guidelines .
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an
exemption.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved
license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match
the actual license.
[ OK ] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of
the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing
the text of the license(s) for the package must be included
in %doc.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ OK ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the
upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[ OK ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or
work on an architecture, then those architectures should be
listed in the spec in ExcludeArch.
[ OK ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of
the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as
BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores
shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the
dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post
and %postun.
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the
packager must state this fact in the request for review,
along with the rationalization for relocation of that
specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it
does not create a directory that it uses, then it should
require a package which does create that directory.
[ OK ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in
the spec file's %files listings.
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not
affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is
in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so
(without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
require the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section.
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already
owned by other packages.
[ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[ N/A ] 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.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package
spec file should contain translations for supported
Non-English languages, if available.
[ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ OK ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms
on all supported architectures.
[ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions
as described. A package should not segfault instead of
running, for example.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be
sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement
to determine sanity.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on
their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes,
so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc,
/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the
package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
[ OK ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for
binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add
them where they make sense.
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list