[Bug 226521] Merge Review: uucp

[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=226521


Adam Tkac <atkac at redhat.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #1 from Adam Tkac <atkac at redhat.com>  2009-12-15 06:45:04 EDT ---
Review of uucp-1.07-20.fc13 package:

+ MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
+ MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
+ MUST: The License field in spec match the actual license
+ MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file must be included in %doc
+ MUST: The spec file written in American English
- MUST(1): The spec file for the package is legible
+ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL
+ MUST: The package successfully compile
+ MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
+ MUST: The spec file handle locales properly
+ MUST: Every package which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic
linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ MUST: Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries
+ MUST: Package own all directories that it creates
+ MUST: Package does not list a file more than once in the spec file
+ MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line
+ MUST: Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
+ MUST: Package use macros consistently
+ MUST: Package contains code, or permissable content
+ MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
+ MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application
+ MUST: Header files in a -devel package
+ MUST: Static libraries in a -static package
+ MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ MUST: 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
+ MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
+ MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built
+ MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
+ MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages
+ MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
+ MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

1 - please fix all rpmlint warnings or explain them.
2 - please add %{?_smp_mflags} macro to "make" command in build section and
remove implicit "all" target.

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