[Bug 263121] Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Aug 29 22:04:33 UTC 2007


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: pharosc - VLSI and ASIC Technology Standard Cell Libraries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=263121





------- Additional Comments From lxtnow at gmail.com  2007-08-29 18:04 EST -------
 [ OK ] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [ OK ] Spec file name must match the base package.
 [ OK ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [ OK ] Package successfully to build into binary rpms on at least one
        supported architecture.
 [ CHECK ] Tested on: Mock [FC-devel]

 [ OK ] Package is not relocatable.
 [ OK ] Buildroot is correct
 [ OK ] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license.
 [ OK ] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 [ OK ] License type: LGPL
 [ OK ] The source package includes the text of the license(s).
 [ OK ] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [ SKIP ] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
 [ OK ] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
 [ OK ] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [ SKIP ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [ Ok ] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [ OK ] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [ OK ] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [ OK ] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [ OK ] Package has a %clean section.
 [ OK ] Package consistently uses macros.
 [ OK ] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [ OK ] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [ CHECK ] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [ SKIP] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [ SKIP ] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [ SKIP ] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [ SKIP ] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [ CHECK ] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [ OK ] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [ SKIP ] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file.
 [ OK ] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

# Quick comment

* some files which're installed in subpackage (such as README, templates/)
should be marked as %doc

* Just add a quick comment in %build stage even if there's no build action.

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list