[Bug 509158] Review Request: fedora-gnat-project-common – files shared by Ada libraries
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Sep 27 18:16:55 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=509158
Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #17 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2009-09-27 14:16:54 EDT ---
Ok, understood. Here is my
REVIEW:
+/- rpmlint isn't silent.
[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/fedora-gnat-project-common-1.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
fedora-gnat-project-common.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$
However this warning may be safely ignored (keeping in mind your notes about
common place for GNAT projects).
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec .
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+/- The spec file for the package is legible, except the dirty trick with
_GNAT_project_dir (fortunately, this would go away then the package hits Fedora
packages collection).
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source.
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum fedora-gnat-project-common-1.2.tar.gz*
f4f63a0cb90193966e21af236b07fd63b725e80617c26cba98b082ad98067146
fedora-gnat-project-common-1.2.tar.gz
f4f63a0cb90193966e21af236b07fd63b725e80617c26cba98b082ad98067146
fedora-gnat-project-common-1.2.tar.gz.1
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. (ppc)
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code or permissible content.
+ Everything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ the package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
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