[Bug 551913] Review Request: monodevelop-vala - A vala plugin for monodevelop

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551913

Paul Lange <palango at gmx.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Paul Lange <palango at gmx.de> 2010-01-28 15:22:14 EST ---
    * MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted
in the review.
monodevelop-vala.i686: E: no-binary
monodevelop-vala.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
monodevelop-vala.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (space
 10)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

"no-binary" and "only-non-binary-in-usr-lib" are false positives. Please fix
the use of spaces and tabs.


    * 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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
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.
OK
    * MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
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. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line.
OK
    * MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
    * MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK
    * MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
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.
OK
    * MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK
    * MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
OK


    * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
OK

############################

Please fix the use of spaces and tabs in the spec file.


This package is 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.