From Fedora Project Wiki
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
- 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 subpackages require base w/ fully-versioned dependencies
- .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
Packaging guidelines:
- Has dist tag
- Useful without external bits
- Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target
- 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
- %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 noreplace or justified
- No %config files under /usr
- SysV-style init script
- Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names
- %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
Application / Language-specific guidelines:
...