[Bug 506721] Package Review: nbtk - A toolkit for moblin NetBooks

[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=506721


Nikolay Vladimirov <nikolay at vladimiroff.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #8 from Nikolay Vladimirov <nikolay at vladimiroff.com>  2009-06-24 18:45:45 EDT ---
Ok, scratch the previous I had a rethink so:

MUST:

    * rpmlint output: 0 errors, 0 warnings ( both srpm and binary rpm)
    * package name: OK
    * The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exeption: OK
    * Packaging Guidelines: OK
    * License: OK
    * The License field file matches the actual license: OK
    * License 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: OK
    * The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture: OK ( on i586)
    * All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires: OK
    * The spec file MUST handle locales properly: N/A ( no locales)
    * 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
    * 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
    * Header files must be in a -devel 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
    * 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



SHOULD Items:
    * The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock: OK (for i586
rawhide)

Minor things before commit: 
   * Update the changelog before committing
   * Note the clutter version in build requres since it's still(0.8.8 in f11)
   BuildRequires: clutter-devel >= 0.9.4
   * add HACKING and README to %doc

-- 
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.