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=693231 Tomáš Bžatek <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] --- Comment #5 from Tomáš Bžatek <[email protected]> 2011-04-11 10:09:54 EDT --- Package review: > MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build > produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1] OK, apart from the errors posted above, no further issues reported > MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK > MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK > MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK > MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines . OK > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual > license. OK, GPLv3 as stated in COPYING. Sources don't have license header except of gedit-collaboration-plugin.c which states GPLv2+ > 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.[4] OK > MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK, looks that way. > MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK, formatting is fine > MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK, verified > MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. OK, tested in koji, see above > 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in > bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work > on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the > corresponding ExcludeArch line. OK, none needed. > MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; > inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK, checked. > MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden OK, macro used. > MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library > files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must > call ldconfig in %post and %postun. Libraries present but not in ld search paths, these are private to gedit and loaded in runtime. > MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK > MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state > this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for > relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is > considered a blocker. OK, none > 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. OK > MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's > %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK > 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. OK > MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK > MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK > MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition > of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted > to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). OK, no extra docs. > MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime > of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run > properly if it is not present. OK > MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK, none > MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK, none > 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. OK, again libraries are private to gedit and are not versioned > MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base > package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = > %{version}-%{release} OK, none > MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be > removed in the spec if they are built. OK, removed > 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not > need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your > explanation. OK, not needed. > MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership > with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. > If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that > another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK > MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
