Bug 526274

- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPLv2) with an open-source compatible license
and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file,
then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is
included in %doc.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible.
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i586.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.: No locales in this package
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If
it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.

SHOULD Items:

 - SHOULD: The source package doesn't include license text(s) as COPYING
 - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i586.
 - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
 - SHOULD:  Those scriptlets used are sane.


Approved

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: gplcver
Short Description: An interpreted Verilog HDL simulator
Owners: shakthimaan chitlesh
Branches: F-10 F-11 EL-5

cvs done (with F-12 branch added).

gplcver-2.11a-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gplcver-2.11a-2.fc10

gplcver-2.11a-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gplcver-2.11a-2.el5

gplcver-2.11a-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gplcver-2.11a-2.fc11

gplcver-2.11a-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gplcver'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0561

gplcver-2.11a-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

gplcver-2.11a-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

gplcver-2.11a-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.