Thanks to everyone for pointing me scripts and other templates. I will take a look at them and it will help me figure out a good starting point.
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky > <sochotni...@redhat.com> wrote: > I'd like to see links to packaging guidelines for each point (or at > least for non-obvious ones). It's helpful for the both parties to know > why they have to fix things. That's a good idea. I don't know how to integrate them and at the same time don't make the template too noisy. I will try to work on that one because I think that would come handy for new reviewers. > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Garrett Holmstrom <gho...@fedoraproject.org> > wrote: > [ ] SourceX is a working URL. > [ ] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. > [ ] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q > --requires). > [ ] %check is present and all tests pass. > [ ] Latest version is packaged. > > Where do these come from? I understand why they're useful and all, but > I'm not sure what guidelines recommend them. They come from other templates I used to build this one. It is possible that not every checks are correct for the moment on my review template. The checklist need to be validated against a current version of the guideline to be sure everything is OK. But, in the end, I would also like to have a section that describe best practices that, while not in the guideline directly, should be good to conform to. Thanks a lot for the feedback! -- Jean-Francois Saucier (djf_jeff) GPG key : 0xA9E6E953 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel