Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: bugs - The Bug Genie https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189553 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-25 22:33 EST ------- Woo hoo, first review. Let's see... Good (I think?): MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 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. MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest ([WWW] http://www.ioccc.org/). 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. MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. 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. MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. Bad: MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Details: + Works with PHP5, contrary to your review request description. - User/group ownership is backward; is root:apache, should be apache:root (as per our discussion). Easy fix. Not sure if the rpmlint errors are acceptable; I'd like to hear from someone with more experience. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
