[Bug 742388] Review Request: polybori - Framework for Boolean Rings

[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=742388

Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #11 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it at gmail.com> 2012-01-02 05:33:33 EST ---
Hi Jerry,

Now all good. This package is APPROVED

Required
========
+ - OK
- - N/A
X - attention
? - comment please

[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines 
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec 
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
unless building for F12 and below  or EPEL   
[+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines 
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license 
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
266218f3ccee05854dac6ea3e68ddbc570c16c45 
rpmbuild/SOURCES/polybori-0.8.0.tar.gz
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary
architecture
[-] Proper use of ExcludeArch 
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package
[+] A package must own all directories that it creates
directories under this
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] Each package must consistently use macros
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[+] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[+] Header files must be in a -devel package
[+] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[+] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section 
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8

[+] Has BuildRequires: python2-devel and/or python3-devel

[-] Python eggs must be built from source. They cannot simply drop an egg from
upstream into the proper directory.
[+] Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[-] If egg-info files are generated by the modules build scripts they must be
included in the package.
[-] When building a compat package, it must install using easy_install -m so it
won't conflict with the main package.
[-] When building multiple versions (for a compat package) one of the packages
must contain a default version that is usable via "import MODULE" with no prior
setup.
[-] A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info. 
[+] Requires OK

[-] Egg install:
%install
%{__python} setup.py install --skip-build --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 

Should Items
============
[-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available
[+] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
[-] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
[+] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[+] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
Do you need an explicit Requires: apron-debug in package ocaml-apron-debug?
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] 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
[+] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts

-- 
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.