https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3345
--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter(a)gmail.com> 2014-12-29 09:41:56 CET
---
Reassessment of failed items:
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
Major Issues (details in list)
==============================
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
I'm going to call this a pass now because the remaining bundled libraries
have been heavily forked by xbmc.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Manual requires aren't arch-specific. (e.g. we should Require:
libbluray%{?_isa} rather than just Require: libbluray)
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Install man pages for binaries
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
xbmc doesn't work on ppc64, thus the ExcludeArch
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Still not split, but not a blocker and probably not worth the effort
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Not a blocker
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.