https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475846
Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemen...@gmail.com> ---
REVIEW:
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines (it was generated by gofed
utility)
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT,
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
as %license.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible as much as it applies to
autogenerated stuff (just use gofed to regenerate it).
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum termbox-go-4ed959e.tar.gz*
bca54bd0555322b1ab94aff97dac01e2fe8efa1f7ce100bc5c7486f6c976fe0a
termbox-go-4ed959e.tar.gz
bca54bd0555322b1ab94aff97dac01e2fe8efa1f7ce100bc5c7486f6c976fe0a
termbox-go-4ed959e.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
