https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970009
--- Comment #26 from Simone Caronni <negativ...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to David Woodhouse from comment #25)
> Package Review
> ==============
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
>
> ===== MUST items =====
>
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
> [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
> [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>
> Generic:
> [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
> other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines.
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
> [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in stoken-
> devel , stoken-libs , stoken-cli , stoken-gui
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
> Provides are present.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: update-desktop-database is invoked when required
> [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
> [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
> beginning of %install.
> [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
> [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there
> is
> such a file.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: 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 is included in %doc.
> [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
> work.
> [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
> [x]: Package is not relocatable.
> [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
> in the spec URL.
> [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec.
> [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
> [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one
> supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>
>
> I would prefer to see BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libtomcrypt)
> pkgconfig(gtk+-2.0) instead of the package names libtomcrypt-devel and
> gtk2-devel.
Done.
> In fact, I'd much rather see pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0) and it doesn't look
> particularly hard, but neither of those observations make it a review
> failure.
Looking into it, is not my domain of expertise and could be good for learning
on something simple like this gui.
I will post something here before asking for fedora-cvs?.
> Review passed; thanks for contributing to Fedora.
Thank you very much as well for all your contributions :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=u2chF3dqXK&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
