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=225729 --- Comment #3 from Ondrej Vasik <ova...@redhat.com> 2009-12-07 13:27:00 EDT --- Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + 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(4,5,6): The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines + MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - MUST(1): The License field in spec match the actual license - MUST(2): If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file must be included in %doc + MUST: The spec file written in American English + MUST: The spec file for the package is legible - MUST(3): The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL + MUST: The package successfully compile + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires + MUST: The spec file handle locales properly 0 MUST: Every package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + MUST: Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries + MUST: Package own all directories that it creates + MUST: Package does not list a file more than once in the spec file + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line + MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + MUST: Package use macros consistently + MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content + MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application 0 MUST: Header files in a -devel package 0 MUST: Static libraries in a -static package 0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' 0 MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package 0 MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built 0 MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 1) License is actually GPLv2+ - from README: "Enscript is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version." 2) COPYING is not packaged in doc - please include it 3) enscript-1.6.4.tar.gz does NOT match upstream cvs: b5174b59e4a050fb462af5dbf28ebba3 enscript-1.6.4.tar.gz upstream (http://www.iki.fi/mtr/genscript/enscript-1.6.4.tar.gz): 9abb0dee940d898af776508a5693ff24 enscript-1.6.4.tar.gz please explain or fix Source0 - Source1 and Source2 do match upstream Additionally fix: 4) fix versioned obsoletes/provides 5) comment the patches, add bugzilla links (either in spec or in patches) 6) %find_lang usage to detect .mo files (to prevent issues in future releases) Rest seems to be ok... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
