[Bug 486687] Review Request: chisholm-rubbing-fonts - Decorative Sans Serif Font

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Feb 21 02:08:39 UTC 2009


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=486687





--- Comment #3 from Jon Stanley <jonstanley at gmail.com>  2009-02-20 21:08:38 EDT ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
NO - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License
OK - License field in spec matches
Embedded in font - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
faf9b021e799e6eddd5e6c0b3089a3f0  ruf.upstream.zip
faf9b021e799e6eddd5e6c0b3089a3f0  ruf.zip
N/A - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang
N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
N/A - Doc subpackage needed/used.
N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

N/A - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
N/A - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage.
N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
N/A - .la files are removed.

N/A - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1143839
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
SEE ABOVE - No rpmlint output.
$ rpmlint *
chisholm-rubbing-fonts.src: E: invalid-spec-name
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:

1. Spec file name doesn't match the base package name - needs to be renamed

-- 
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