From Fedora Project Wiki

No edit summary
Line 30: Line 30:
* sselp
* sselp

* Currently, I'm preparing a newer version of syslog-ng. (Update to version 3.2.1)
== Current work ==
* I'm preparing a newer version of syslog-ng. (Update to version 3.2.1)
* Fedora-16 feature?

== Review Template ==
== Review Template ==

Revision as of 08:32, 23 March 2011

Matthias Runge


email: mrunge at fedoraproject dot org
icq: 252709172
irc: mrunge at #fedora-de, #fedora
snail mail: please contact me directly to get an address. I'm located in the north western part of Germany


I'm using Fedora since it's first version and RedHat Linux since 3.3. I'm contributing to fedora project through testing new packages, writing bug reports, and end user support.

Packages and Packaging

About GIT and CVS:

My packages

Current work

Review Template

(taken from because I like it.

Package Review

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

[ ]  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:
[ ]  Rpmlint output:
[ ]  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.
MD5SUM this package    :
MD5SUM upstream package:
[ ]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
Arches excluded:
[ ]  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} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ ]  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.

[ ]  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:
[ ]  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
Tested on:
[ ]  Package functions as described.
[ ]  Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[ ]  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[ ]  File based requires are sane.

=== Issues ===

=== Final Notes ===

*** APPROVED ***


*** REJECTED ***