[Bug 598860] Review Request: httpd-itk - MPM Itk for Apache HTTP Server

[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=598860

--- Comment #19 from Nikos Roussos <nikos at autoverse.net> 2012-03-06 07:50:54 EST ---
It seems ok. Here is the review

+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
?: Question or clarification needed
N: not applicable

MUST:
[+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: none
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license: ASL 2.0
[+] license field matches the actual license.
[-] license file is included in %doc

Please include LICENSE on %doc (also README)

[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86_64
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[+] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[N] query upstream for license text
[=] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock
[=] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64
[+] package functions as described: 
[N] sane scriptlets
[N] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[+] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

Have you considered adding man pages or are the same as httpd package?

-- 
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.