[Bug 497634] Review Request: perl-App-Daemon - Start an Application as a Daemon

[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=497634


Jan Klepek <jan.klepek at hp.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jan.klepek at hp.com




--- Comment #1 from Jan Klepek <jan.klepek at hp.com>  2009-04-26 08:52:19 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. 
- OK

[makerpm at fetaciq result]$ rpmlint perl-App-Daemon-0.06-1.fc11.src.rpm
perl-App-Daemon-0.06-1.fc11.noarch.rpm ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/perl-App-Daemon.spec 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
- OK

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
- OK

MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
- OK

MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines
- OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
- OK

MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file
- OK, no license file present

MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- OK

MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- OK

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. 
- OK

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
- OK

MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture...
- OK

MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
- OK

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. 
- OK, no locales

MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- OK

MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable....
- OK, not relocatable

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
- OK

MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. 
- OK

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 
- OK

MUST: Each package must have a %clean section...
- OK

MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
- OK

MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
-OK 

MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. 
- OK

MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. 
- OK

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- OK, no header files

MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- OK, no static package

MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
- OK, no .pc files

MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files
that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
- OK, no .so library 

MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
- OK, no devel package

MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
-OK, no libtool archives

MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, 
-OK, no GUI

MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. 
- OK, perl package

MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
- OK

MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 
- OK

Conclusion: Looks OK, I would rather to have double checking from somebody else
as I'm doing review for perl package for first time.

should we put perl-sig mailing list into CC?

-- 
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.