https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027380

Kevin Fenzi <[email protected]> changed:

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



--- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi <[email protected]> ---
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name. 
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. 
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. 
OK - License (MIT)
OK - License field in spec matches
See below - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
b4437ce302bd6c3f4abda3d9330ddcf9  libxshmfence-1.0.tar.bz2
b4437ce302bd6c3f4abda3d9330ddcf9  libxshmfence-1.0.tar.bz2.orig
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. 
OK - Package is code or permissible content. 
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. 

OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. 
OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
OK - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
OK - .so files in -devel subpackage.
OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. 
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. 
See below - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. 
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. 
OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions)
See below - No rpmlint output. 
OK - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock. 
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or
/usr/sbin

Issues: 

1. Might ask upstream to toss a copy of the MIT license in there if/when
they do more releases. Nonblocker

2. This package owns /usr/include/X11, but there's no more sane package 
it could depend on to own that currently, so not a blocker. 

3. rpmlint says: 
libxshmfence.x86_64: W: no-documentation
libxshmfence-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Can be ignored. 

I don't see any blockers, so this package is 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
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

Reply via email to