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=504077 --- Comment #10 from Chitlesh GOORAH <chitl...@gmail.com> 2009-06-07 12:47:37 EDT --- - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name} - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) 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 matches the actual license. - MUST: 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 is included in %doc. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least i386. - MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. - MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths - MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable - MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: There are no Large documentation files - MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries - MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix - MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives - MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386. - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane. - SHOULD: No subpackages present. APPROVED -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
