[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-01 19:52:24 EDT --- axel-2.4-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||2.4-1.fc10 Resolution||ERRATA -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-08-01 19:54:39 EDT --- axel-2.4-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|2.4-1.fc10 |2.4-1.fc11 -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-16 03:17:58 EDT --- axel-2.4-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update axel'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7637 -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-16 03:31:00 EDT --- axel-2.4-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update axel'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-7677 -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-07-12 11:58:36 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: axel Short Description: Accelerated download client Owners: ankursinha Branches: F-10 F-11 -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-07-12 12:12:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) Ankur you don't plan maintain axel for EPEL? Is there any troubles wit it? Or just you don't want? uhm.. no.. I couldn't find any proper documentation for a non font package lifecycle.. And I've never maintained a package.. From what I had learnt from font packaging, I filled up... I don't know much about EPEL etc. Should I add EPEL as a branch? Removing the fedora-cvs tag for the meanwhile.. regards, Ankur -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #10 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-07-12 12:05:11 EDT --- Ankur you don't plan maintain axel for EPEL? Is there any troubles wit it? Or just you don't want? -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #13 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-07-12 12:42:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) (In reply to comment #11) uhm.. no.. I couldn't find any proper documentation for a non font package lifecycle.. And I've never maintained a package.. From what I had learnt from font packaging, Main documentation located in wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL I'll read up.. Axel is your first package at all? yup.. I've only packaged fonts before this. I filled up... I don't know much about EPEL etc. Should I add EPEL as a branch? Only if you want. This is freedom. You may don't wish do it itself. So, you may wish transfer it to another maintainer or so on... Removing the fedora-cvs tag for the meanwhile.. In vain. Yo always in future may request additional branch. So, start from F-10 and F-11 now! Okay.. I'll do these two right now and request EPEL maybe later.. regards, Ankur -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-07-12 12:47:17 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: axel Short Description: Accelerated download client Owners: ankursinha Branches: F-10 F-11 -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #12 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-07-12 12:27:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) uhm.. no.. I couldn't find any proper documentation for a non font package lifecycle.. And I've never maintained a package.. From what I had learnt from font packaging, Main documentation located in wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL Axel is your first package at all? I filled up... I don't know much about EPEL etc. Should I add EPEL as a branch? Only if you want. This is freedom. You may don't wish do it itself. So, you may wish transfer it to another maintainer or so on... Removing the fedora-cvs tag for the meanwhile.. In vain. Yo always in future may request additional branch. So, start from F-10 and F-11 now! regards, Ankur -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-12 13:19:11 EDT --- CVS done. -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-12 14:06:32 EDT --- axel-2.4-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/axel-2.4-1.fc11 -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-07-12 14:07:47 EDT --- axel-2.4-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/axel-2.4-1.fc10 -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-07-11 04:36:43 EDT --- Ankur, each time when you make changes and new build preformed, you must change release number and write appropriate changelog. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Release https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-07-11 04:46:01 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) Ankur, each time when you make changes and new build preformed, you must change release number and write appropriate changelog. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Release https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs hi, yeah.. i dint think it was necessary for these changes.. sorry.. Ill do it from now.. is the rest of the package okay? Ankur Sinha -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-07-11 08:04:04 EDT --- Yes, almost other is done. Package 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pa...@hubbitus.info Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-07-10 16:01:34 EDT --- I'll review it. -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 --- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info 2009-07-10 16:05:20 EDT --- As it was almost my spec (or very-very closest) I think it should be easy :) Formal review follow, meantime, as I already mention before ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454980#c50 ) unwieldy line endings conversion absolutely is not needed in you case. -- 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
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428
--- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pa...@hubbitus.info
2009-07-10 16:43:33 EDT ---
Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this
list and more]
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing 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.
File COPYING must be included.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[=] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
Source matched:
$ md5sum axel-2.4.tar.gz
a2a762fce0c96781965c8f9786a3d09d axel-2.4.tar.gz
Consider use %{version} in Source URL -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
Package compiled.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
No shared libraries.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
Package is not relocatable.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] 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 permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No static libraries.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
Have not pkgconfig(.pc) files.
[+] 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.
Have not.
[+] 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 should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
Only cli.
[+] 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.
SHOULD Items:
[=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Source include it, but package does not (see above).
[+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
No translations in spec.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
Done:
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428
--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-07-10 23:26:57
EDT ---
hi,
(In reply to comment #4)
Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing
MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [FIXME?: covers this
list and more]
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing 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.
File COPYING must be included.
Included.. I had missed it somehow..
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[=] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,
as provided in the spec URL.
Source matched:
$ md5sum axel-2.4.tar.gz
a2a762fce0c96781965c8f9786a3d09d axel-2.4.tar.gz
Consider use %{version} in Source URL -
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D
Corrected..
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
Package compiled.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using
the
%find_lang macro.
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
No shared libraries.
[+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state
this fact in the request for review
Package is not relocatable.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] 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 permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No static libraries.
[+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
Have not pkgconfig(.pc) files.
[+] 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.
Have not.
[+] 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 should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in
the
%install section.
Only cli.
[+] 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.
SHOULD Items:
[=] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Source include it, but package does not (see above).
Corrected.
[+] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
No translations in spec.
[Bug 510428] Review Request: axel - Accelerated download client
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=510428 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||an...@ankurs.com --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-07-09 04:56:14 EDT --- *** Bug 454980 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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
