[Bug 504468] Review Request: rubygem-treetop - A Ruby-based text parsing and interpretation DSL

[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=504468


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

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




--- Comment #10 from Jan Klepek <jan.klepek at hp.com>  2009-08-09 07:21:22 EDT ---
rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
- Ok

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

The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
- ok

The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
- ok, meets packaging and ruby specific guidelines

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 primary architecture.
- ok

ExcludeArch present.
- ok, no excludearch

All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
- ok

The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
- ok

Ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- ok, not needed

Relocatable package and /usr prefix.
- ok, not relocatable

A package must own all directories that it creates.
- 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.
- ok

Each package must have a correct %clean section.
- 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.
- ok

Header files must be in a -devel package.
- ok, no header

Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- ok, no static

Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' .
- ok, no .pc

Library with .so suffix must be in -devel package.
- ok, no .so library

In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- ok, no devel

Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in
the spec if they are built.
- ok, no .la

Gui application and desktop-file-install.
- ok, no gui

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.