[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Review for inclusion: diction



On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 18:19 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> Hi, all:
> 
> One of our faculty requested this, so I revived an old Fedora.us
> package, and I'm willing to maintain it in extras. The specfile is
> extremely straigtforward to the point of no output at all from rpmlint
> (which is a first for me). :) Please approve, and I'll push it into
> the CVS.

Review:

Rpmlint checks:

No output, always pleasant to see.

Good:
- Package meets PackageNamingGuidelines
- spec file name matches base package name
- Package meets PackagingGuidelines
- License (GPL) OK
- License in spec matches source
- License text in %doc
- Spec text in American English
- Spec is legible
- Source matches upstream
- Package successfully compiles and builds on x86 (FC4).
- No extra BuildRequires
- All other BuildRequires listed
- Spec file handles locales correctly
- No shared libs
- No need for -devel or -docs subpackages
- Not relocatable
- All created directories owned by package
- No duplicate files in %files
- Permissions on files set properly.
- %clean section found
- macro use is consistent
- package is code not content
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
        
APPROVED
        
~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]