User:Fab/Packaging

My sponsor is Christoph Wickert

• My open reviews

• My closed reviews

Packages for review

• garmintools - Communication tools for Garmin devices. -> Review Request (deferred, needs libgarmin which is not available in Fedora at the moment)
• Memorize - Memorize for Sugar -> Review Request
• Maze - Maze for Sugar -> Review Request
• Distance - Distance measurement for Sugar -> Review Request
• Read - PDF reader for Sugar -> Review Request
• Speak - Speak for Sugar -> Review Request

Packages in Progress

• Navit - Navit is a car navigation system with routing engine.
• Implode - Implode for Sugar
• Record - Recording tool for Sugar
• Ruler - Ruler for Sugar
• Analyze - Analysing tool for Sugar
• Measure - Measure Activity for Sugar
• Wikibrowse - Wiki reader for Sugar

• other XO activites, check this page

• gpxe - gPXE is an open source network bootloader.

Packages

• Remoot - the pseudo-universal remote control wrapper.
• weplab - Analyzing WEP encryption security on wireless networks.

or

• Package database

Review template

Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [?] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [?] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [?] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
 [?] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
     Tested on: 
       [] devel/i386 
       [] devel/x86_64
       [] F9/i386 
       [] F9/x86_64
 [?] Rpmlint output:
     Source RPM:

     Binary RPM(s):

 [?] Package is not relocatable.
 [?] Buildroot is correct
     (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [?] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [?] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: 
 [?] If (and only if) 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.
 [?] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [?] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
     Upstream source: 
     Build source:    
 [?] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [?] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [?] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [?] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [?] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [?] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [?] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [?] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [?] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
 [?] Package consistently uses macros.
 [?] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [?] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [?] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [?] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [?] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [?] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [?] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [?] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [?] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [?] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
 [?] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [?] Latest version is packaged.
 [?] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [?] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [?] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: F9/i386
 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
     Tested on: 
       [?] devel/i386 
       [?] devel/x86_64
       [?] F9/i386 
       [?] F9/x86_64
 [?] Package functions as described (no hardware to test with).
 [?] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [?] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [?] File based requires are sane.