Package review template

[Jean-Francois Saucier]

Thanks to everyone for pointing me scripts and other templates. I will
take a look at them and it will help me figure out a good starting
point.


> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky at redhat.com> wrote:
> I'd like to see links to packaging guidelines for each point (or at
> least for non-obvious ones). It's helpful for the both parties to know
> why they have to fix things.

That's a good idea. I don't know how to integrate them and at the same
time don't make the template too noisy. I will try to work on that one
because I think that would come handy for new reviewers.


> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Garrett Holmstrom <gholms at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> [ ]  SourceX is a working URL.
> [ ]  SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
> [ ]  Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
> --requires).
> [ ]  %check is present and all tests pass.
> [ ]  Latest version is packaged.
>
> Where do these come from?  I understand why they're useful and all, but
> I'm not sure what guidelines recommend them.

They come from other templates I used to build this one. It is
possible that not every checks are correct for the moment on my review
template. The checklist need to be validated against a current version
of the guideline to be sure everything is OK. But, in the end, I would
also like to have a section that describe best practices that, while
not in the guideline directly, should be good to conform to.



Thanks a lot for the feedback!

-- 
Jean-Francois Saucier (djf_jeff)
GPG key : 0xA9E6E953