[Bug 478769] Review Request: spring-installer - Installer for the Spring game's maps and mods

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 16 20:34:53 UTC 2009


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=478769


Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #17 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov at gmail.com>  2009-03-16 16:34:52 EDT ---
Here is the third review:

+ rpmlint output clean.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
  Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ File, containing the text of the licenses for the package is included in
  %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as
  provided in the spec URL.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
  one primary architecture.
+ Architectures where package does not successfully compile, build or work are
  listed in ExcludeArch.

Bugs should be filled against all 4 spring packages after their acceptance and
added to FE-ExcludeArch-ppc{,64} tracker:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ No need to deal with locales.
+ Package does not store shared libraries.
+ The package does not designed to be relocatable.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ A package does not list a file more than once in the spec %files listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ Does not contain large documentation files.
+ Includes only doc files in %doc.
+ No headers.
+ No static libraries.
+ The package does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The package does not contain library files with a suffix (e.g.
  libfoo.so.1.1).
+ No devel packages.
+ The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
+ Package includes %{name}.desktop file. Properly installed with
  desktop-file-install.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
  packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8.
+ The package builds in mock.
+ A package does not segfault instead of running.
+ Used scriptlets are sane.


This package is APPROVED, cvs creation should delayed until all four spring
packages are accepted.

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list