Bug 558876
| Summary: | Merge Review: perl-Image-Xbm | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Stepan Kasal <kasal> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Marcela Mašláňová <mmaslano> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mmaslano:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2010-02-04 08:55:48 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Stepan Kasal
2010-01-26 16:23:20 UTC
Why has this been opened? Can someone please give us a reason why people are opening new merge review tickets? This package was part of extras at the time of the merge; no Fedora policy requires that it be re-reviewed. (In reply to comment #1) > Why has this been opened? The reason is basically the same as for the Merge Reviews for Fedora Core packages; the review happened long ago and the package quality is not assured. But, as you pointed out on the list, it seems unfair to add to the already huge pile of unresolved reviews; so I'm assigning these new bugs to one of my colleagues. Hope this helps. OK rpmlint on every package.
OK name of package accords to the Naming Guidelines.
OK spec file name match the base package %{name}.
OK package meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK package has a good license.
OK spec file is written in American English.
OK spec file for the package must be legible.
OK The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
OK successful koji compilation.
OK correct BuildRequires, Requires.
OK proper use of %find_lang macro.
OK shared library must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK relocatable package must state this fact.
OK package must own their directories.
OK permissions on files must be set properly.
OK %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot}.
OK consistent use of macros.
OK package contains code, or permissable content.
OK large documentation go in a -doc subpackage.
OK %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
OK header files must be in a -devel package.
OK static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'.
OK library files with a suffix (.so) must go in -devel.
OK usually devel packages must require the base package.
OK Remove .la libtool archives.
OK GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file.
OK %install section starts with rm -rf %{buildroot}.
This could be closed now. |