[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 462309] Review Request: publican-ovirt - Common documentation files for oVirt

[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=462309


Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |petersen at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com>  2008-10-03 01:15:30 EDT ---
Here is the review:

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
Open Publication
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must 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, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.

please see above comments

[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: 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.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[=] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.

see above: (-,root,root,-) is preferred

[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.

(it wouldn't hurt to add a macro say %publicandir for %{_datadir}/publican
though maybe would probably come first in the other publican packages)

[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] 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.

SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.


Please fix the earlier mentioned points and I think the package can be
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.