User:Gholms/review template

Mandatory review guidelines:
 - rpmlint output
   ...
 - Package meets naming guidelines
 - Spec file name matches base package name
 - License is acceptable (...)
 - License field in spec is correct
 - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source
 - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed
 - Spec written in American English
 - Spec is legible
 - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues
   Upstream MD5:  ...
   Your MD5:      ...
 - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform
 - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed
 - BuildRequires correct
 - Package handles locales with %find_lang
 - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files
 - No bundled system libs
 - Relocatability is justified
 - Package owns all directories it creates
 - Package requires other packages for directories it uses but does not own
 - No duplicate files in %files unless necessary for license files
 - File permissions are sane
 - Each %files section contains %defattr on EL4
 - Consistent use of macros
 - Sources contain only permissible code or content
 - Large documentation files go in -doc package
 - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime
 - Headers go in -devel package
 - Static libs go in -static package
 - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package
 - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency
 - Package contains no .la files
 - GUI app installs .desktop file w/desktop-file-install or has justification
 - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' or justified
 - File names are valid UTF-8

Optional review guidelines:
 - Query upstream about including license files
 - Translations of description, Summary
 - Builds in mock
 - Builds on all supported platforms
 - Functions as described
 - Scriptlets are sane
 - Non-devel subpackage Requires are sane
 - .pc files go in -devel unless main package is a development tool
 - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin
 - Man pages included for all executables
 - Package with test-suite executes it in %check section

Packaging guidelines:
 - Has dist tag
 - Useful without external bits
 - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /usr/target, /run
 - Programs launched before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run
 - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr
 - Changelog in prescribed format
 - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags
 - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6
 - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6
 - Requires correct, justified where necessary
 - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly
 - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately
 - Documentation files do not have executable permissions
 - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise
 - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6
 - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified
 - No static executables
 - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs
 - Config files marked with %config
 - %config files marked noreplace or justified
 - No %config files under /usr
 - SysV-style init script
 - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names where appropriate
 - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed
 - %makeinstall used only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work
 - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time
 - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir}
 - %global instead of %define where appropriate
 - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext
 - File timestamps preserved by file ops
 - Parallel make
 - Spec does not use Requires(pre,post) notation
 - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups)
 - Web app files go in /usr/share/%{name}, not /var/www
 - Conflicts are justified
 - No external kernel modules
 - No files in /srv
 - One project per package
 - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified
 - Packages needing dirs in /var/run or /var/lock use tmpfiles.d on >= F15

Application / Language-specific guidelines:
 ...

Java Guidelines

 - Javadocs go in javadoc subpackage
 - Prefer split JARs over monolithic
 - JAR file names correct
 - JAR files go in %{_javadir} or %{_javadir}-$version
 - Multiple JAR files go in a %{name} subdirectory
 - Javadocs go in unversioned %{_javadocdir}/%{name}
 - javadoc subpackage is noarch on > EL5
 - BuildRequires java-devel, jpackage-utils
 - Requires java >= $version, jpackage-utils
 - Dependencies on java/java-devel >= 1.6.0 add epoch 1
 - Package requiring maven contains correct maven-specific code in spec
 - GCJ AOT bits follow GCJ guidelines
 - No devel package
 - JNI shared objects, JARs that require them go in %{_libdir}/%{name}
 - Calls to System.loadLibrary replaced w/ System.load w/ full .so path
 - Bundled JAR files not included or used for build
 - No Javadoc %post/%ghost
 - No class-path elements in JAR manifests
 - pom.xml files, if any, installed with %add_maven_depmap
 - %{_mavenpomdir} used instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
 - Use of "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" justified
 - Use of "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=(anything)" justified
 - %update_maven_depmap not called in %post, %postun

Python Guidelines

 - Runtime Requires correct
 - Python macros declared on < F13/EL6
 - All .py files packaged with .pyc, .pyo counterparts
 - Includes .egg-info files/directories when generated
 - Provides/Requires properly filtered
 - Code that invokes gtk.gdk.get_pixels_array() Requires numpy