[Bug 631558] Review Request: arduino - An IDE for Arduino-compatible electronics prototyping platforms

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Sep 17 11:45:28 UTC 2010


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=631558

--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako at redhat.com> 2010-09-17 07:45:27 EDT ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. There are a number of 
devel-file-in-non-devel-package warnings but as this is an IDE for cross
compiling and these headers/sources are used only for crosscompiling there is
no reason to put them in devel package.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

FIXIT: 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.
There is a lisense.txt file which you should put as %doc.

OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Instructions to generate the tarball included.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: 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: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. 
OK: 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: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 

So there is just one small issue the missing %doc for lisence.txt it would be
good if you add readme.txt too.
When these are fixed I'll approve the package and sponsor you.

-- 
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