Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Fabian Affolter <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter <>  2009-02-15 
08:18:36 EDT ---
Package Review


 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: F10/i386
 [x] Rpmlint output:
     Source RPM:
     [...@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gpscorrelate-1.5.8-1.tillf8.src.rpm 
     1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
     Binary RPM(s):
     [...@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint gpscorrelate*
     2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
     master   : %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
     spec file: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 [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] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: GPLv2+
 [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] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     Upstream source: 99e61153ac1245955e780298a6125130
     Build source:    99e61153ac1245955e780298a6125130
 [-] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.  %find_lang used for locales.
 [x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every
%files section.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.

 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete.
 [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI

 [-] Timestamps preserved with cp and install.
 [x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: F10/i386
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [x] Changelog in allowed format

Is there a reason why RELEASES and README are not included in %doc?  Beside the
%doc stuff I see no further blocker, package APPROVED.

The usage of 'redhat-starthere' is a bit problematic but I guess that if the
icon is missing there is no icon showing up in menu.  Let's wait for the icon
from the ArtTeam.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to