[Bug 428973] Review Request: vodovod - a pipe connecting game

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vodovod - a pipe connecting game


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428973





------- Additional Comments From ianweller at gmail.com  2008-02-03 01:31 EST -------
[OK] = ok, [XX] = fail, [NA] = doesn't apply, [  ] = not tested

[OK] rpmlint passes
[OK] package named according to Package Naming Guidelines
[XX] spec file name matches base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
 - vodovod.spec.0.10 was odd, not sure if that was just for your hosting or
   what
[OK] package must meet Packaging Guidelines
[OK] package must be licensed with Fedora approved license 
     and meet Licensing Guidelines
[OK] License field in spec file must match actual license 
[OK] 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] spec file is written in American English 
[OK] spec file for the package is legible 
[OK] sources used to build package match upstream source, as provided in spec URL
[OK] package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported architecture
[NA] if package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture,
     then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch
[OK] all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires except for exceptions
[NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[NA] Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files in any of the
     dynamic linker's default paths must call ldconfig in %post and %postun 
[NA] if the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
     fact in the request for review
[OK] package must own all directories that it creates 
[OK] package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing 
[OK] permissions on files must be set properly
[OK] package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
     (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[OK] each package must consistently use macros
[OK] package must contain code
[NA] large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage
 - i thought at first that html/ should be *-doc, but it's only one file... 
[OK] if a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
     the application
[NA] header files must be in a -devel package 
[NA] static libraries must be in a -static package 
[NA] packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
     directory ownership and usability)
[NA] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package 
[NA] devel packages must require base package using fully versioned dependency
[OK] packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[OK] packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
[OK] packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[OK] each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[OK] all filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
[NA] if the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it
[NA] description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain 
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available
[OK] package builds in mock 
[OK] package should compile and build into binary rpms
     on all supported architectures
 - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=392130
[OK] reviewer should test that the package functions as described
[NA] if scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane 
[NA] usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package 
     using a fully versioned dependency
[NA] 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
[NA] 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

One problem found

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.