[Bug 467398] Review Request: mingw32-gettext - GNU libraries and utilities for producing multi-lingual messages

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jan 16 15:06:33 UTC 2009


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=467398


Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen at googlemail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #19 from Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen at googlemail.com>  2009-01-16 10:06:30 EDT ---
MUST:
* package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
    mingw32-*
* spec file name match base package
* package meet Packaging Guidelines 
* package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines 
* License field match the actual license.
* available license(s) file(s) is included in %doc.
* spec file is written in American English. 
* spec file is legible. 
* package compile on x86
* build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires
* no linux locales
* no shared libs
* package not relocatable
* package own all directories that it creates.
* no duplicate files in the %files listing. 
* Permissions on files must be set properly. (%defattr(...) line)
* %clean section present and contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
* package is consistently using macros
* package contain code, or permissable content
* no large doc
* %doc does not affect runtime
* no linux headers
* no static libs
* no *.pc files
* no *.so.* libs
* no -devel packages
* package dont contain .la libtool archives.
* not a GUI app.
* no files or directories already owned by other packages.
* %install begins with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
* filenames is valid UTF-8

SHOULD:
* source package include license text(s) in separate file from upstream
? builds in mock. 
    I have not tried, but I don't think it is a problem
* no scriptlets
* no subpackages

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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list