[Bug 477979] Review Request: ripMIME - Extract attachments out of a MIME encoded email packages

[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=477979


Jan Klepek <jan.klepek at hp.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #5 from Jan Klepek <jan.klepek at hp.com>  2009-08-01 15:39:40 EDT ---
rpmlint must be run on every package. 
- OK
[makerpm at kokain result]$ rpmlint ripmime-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
- OK

The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
- 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


If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture,
...
- OK


All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
- OK


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.
- OK, no shared library


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


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


A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
- OK


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


Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- OK


Each package must consistently use macros.
- OK


The package must contain code, or permissable content.
- OK


Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
- OK


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


Header files must be in a -devel package.
- OK


Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- OK


Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
- OK


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


In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- OK


Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in
the spec if they are built.
- OK


Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
- 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.
- OK

Conclusion: Approved

-- 
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.