[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