[Bug 241262] Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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

Summary: Review Request: libpciaccess - abstraction layer for PCI access


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241262


belegdol at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From belegdol at gmail.com  2007-05-30 06:36 EST -------
      - MUST: rpmlint is not silent on the devel package. Complains about no
documentation, but this can be ignored.
      - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package name
      - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
      - MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and
meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
      - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must matches the actual
license - MIT
      - MUST: License is included in %doc.
      - MUST: The spec file is written in American English.
      - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible.
      - MUST: Package builds and compiles on fc6/i386
      - MUST: Did not find compile failures
      - MUST: Buildrequires are fine
      - MUST: Locale does not apply
      - MUST: ldconfig is used properly
      - MUST: Non-relocatable
      - MUST: No dirs created
      - MUST: No duplicates in %files
      - MUST: Correct permissions
      - MUST: %clean section present
      - MUST: Consistent use of macros
      - MUST: Package contains code
      - MUST: No large documentation
      - MUST: No %doc runtime dependency
      - MUST: Header files are in a -devel package.
      - MUST: No static libs
      - MUST: pkgconfig requires correct
      - MUST: .so file in -devel
      - MUST: Correct NVR requires for devel
      - MUST: No libtool archives
      - MUST: Not a GUI app
      - MUST: No overlapping ownership
      - MUST: Correct buildroot cleanup
      - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:

      - SHOULD: License is present as a separate file
      - SHOULD: Package builds in mock (fc6/i386)
      - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane
      - SHOULD: NVR dependencies correct
      - SHOULD: pkgconfig files are in -devel

Things to correct:
- please change package release to 0.1.%{gitdate}git%{?dist}, as per [1]
- please read [2] to check how to state the source url precisely
- a minot thing: please align -devel requires with the lines above them

Other than that, the package looks fine to me.

[1]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-cfd71146dbb6f00cec9fe3623ea619f843394837
[2]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL?highlight=%28sourceurl%29#head-615f6271efb394ab340a93a6cf030f2d08cf0d49

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.