[Bug 509159] Review Request: PragmARC – a component library for Ada

[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=509159


Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-10-29 07:19:25 EDT ---
Koji successful scratchbuild for F-11:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776218

Sources, used to build package, are matching upstream ones:
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum pragmarc.zip*
6c80906ed7b64fb1c065f1a7a9331fa644ce1c2f34e807dd794d74db92201da9  pragmarc.zip
6c80906ed7b64fb1c065f1a7a9331fa644ce1c2f34e807dd794d74db92201da9 
pragmarc.zip.1
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$

REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is silent:

[petro at Workplace tmp]$ rpmlint PragmARC-
PragmARC-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm           
PragmARC-debuginfo-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm 
PragmARC-devel-20060427-4.fc11.i586.rpm      
[petro at Workplace tmp]$ rpmlint PragmARC-*
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[petro at Workplace tmp]$ 

+ 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. (GPL
with exceptions)
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) 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 are matching the upstream source.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. 
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The package (or subpackage) calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings. 
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Development-related files are in a -devel package.
+ The library file that end in .so (without suffix) is in a -devel package.
[20]
+ The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


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.