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=721174
Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com> 2011-11-24 02:32:06
EST ---
Hi Jerry, good stuff, this package is APPROVED on the proviso:
1) Use of %{name} macro in Source tags and URL
[-] N/A
[+] Good
[?] Attention
[ ] Not performed
Required
========
[+] named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+] Meet the Packaging Guidelines
unless building for F12 and below or EPEL
[+] Be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines
[+] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license
[+] License file must be included in %doc
[+] The spec file must be written in American English
[+] The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[+] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source
sha1sum 1070ff76edc06d2952d138bc32ab85580add5157
[+] Successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary
architecture
[-] Proper use of ExcludeArch
[+] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] The spec file MUST handle locales properly
[+] Shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[-] 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
[+] A package must own all directories that it creates
directories under this
[+] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
[+] Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr(...) no longer required
[?] Each package must consistently use macros
*** Use %{name} in Source and URL's
[+] The package must contain code, or permissable content
[-] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
[+] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
[+] Header files must be in a -devel package
[+] Static libraries must be in a -static package
[+] library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package
[+] devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
[+] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
[-] GUI apps must include a %{name}.desktop file, properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section
[+] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
[+] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
[-] Has BuildRequires: python2-devel and/or python3-devel
Should Items
============
[-] the packager SHOULD query upstream for any missing license text files to
include it
[-] Non-English language support for description and summary sections in the
package spec if available
[ ] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
[+] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures
[+] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
cryptominisat --nosolprint --verbosity=1 AProVE09-12.cnf.gz OK
[-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
[+] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) should usually be placed in a -devel pkg
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself
[+] Should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
None in source although adequate documentation
--
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.