[Bug 452108] Review Request: cfdg-fe - A frontend for cfdg

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452108


Paulo Roma Cavalcanti <roma at lcg.ufrj.br> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |roma at lcg.ufrj.br

Bug 452108 depends on bug 452107, which changed state.

Bug 452107 Summary: Review Request: cfdg - Context Free Design Grammar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452107

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED



--- Comment #1 from Paulo Roma Cavalcanti <roma at lcg.ufrj.br>  2008-10-30 18:05:28 EDT ---


There is no "ready" tarball here:

 http://impulzus.com/~tchibo/

I downloaded a Zip file, which name has 8 characters, and change 
each time. 

Anyway, rpmlint is clean,

and I built it locally on F8 x86_64, after rebuilding
its dependency (cfdg).

It also builds for F9 i386 with mock.

I loaded several examples from cfdg, and rendered the images,
although a few files did not succeed.

There is also in the source an example called

welcome.cfdg

which could go to the documentation.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
OK: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
NA: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. 
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, 
NA: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. 
NA: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, 
OK: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
OK: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
OK: Each package must have a %clean section.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
NA: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
NA: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
NA: 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.
NA: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
OK: 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. 
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (
or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


Summary: All clean.

-- 
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.