On 12/12/2016 09:35 AM, Guido Aulisi wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to complete an unofficial review > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401450) to check my > review skills :-), and I have some problems filling some MUST items > which fedora-review leaves blanks. > The items are: > > 1) Sources contain only permissible code or content: this is very hard > to check if source code is big enough; I'm quite sure that it doesn't > contain content, but checking all source code would be a very long > work. Can we rely on the license (GPLv3+)? >
This one is more of a best reasonable effort requirement. As long as you scan through things and don't see any evidence that something would be impermissible, it should be fine. Mostly this is a catch-all for things that humans are better at discovering than a computer (like someone submitting a program called "Last Fantasy" which is a complete replica of a famous video game). > 2) Package does not generate any conflict: do I have to install all > Fedora packeges to check this or is there a better way to check that > (maybe a query to the package database)? > Mostly this one is just to ensure that we don't have a whole bunch of packages trying to own /usr/bin/commonword or something. > 3) Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag: I think I need > a scratch koji build to check this, but it was not done. Can I do a > scratch build myself? > This is a MAY, not a MUST, I think. It basically means that the package isn't known not to work properly on specific architectures. (Which is subtly different from ExclusiveArch, which means that it's only supported on certain architectures). > 4) Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines: this seems to me like > a catch all question, it summarizes all other items, doesn't it? > Yes.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
