From 961a700b107383bd09ea3d5ae43b1d84bf6da9fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fabio Valentini Date: May 01 2025 16:26:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ReviewGuidelines: SemBR treatment and cleaned up formatting --- diff --git a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc index 0988b09..5de7e3e 100644 --- a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc +++ b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc @@ -1,69 +1,260 @@ = Package Review Guidelines -This is a set of guidelines for Package Reviews. Note that a complete list of things to check for would be impossible, but every attempt has been made to make this document as comprehensive as possible. Reviewers and contributors (packagers) should use their best judgement whenever items are unclear, and if in doubt, ask on the https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging.lists.fedoraproject.org/[Fedora packaging list] . +This is a set of guidelines for Package Reviews. +Note that a complete list of things to check for would be impossible, +but every attempt has been made +to make this document as comprehensive as possible. +Reviewers and contributors (packagers) +should use their best judgement +whenever items are unclear, +and if in doubt, +ask on the https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging.lists.fedoraproject.org/[Fedora packaging list] . == Package Review Process -Contributors and reviewers MUST follow the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/[Package Review Process], with the following exceptions: +Contributors and reviewers +MUST follow the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/[Package Review Process], +with the following exceptions: -* FPC grants an explicit exemption from the process, as indicated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure[here]. -* The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution (or coexist between EPEL and RHEL). The package MUST be properly named according to the xref:Naming.adoc#_multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name[naming guidelines] and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. -* The package exists in both Fedora and RHEL, but the packager wants to ship it in EPEL under an alternative name (as required by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy[EPEL policy]) to provide a subpackage that exists in Fedora but does not exist (or is not shipped) in RHEL. +* FPC grants an explicit exemption from the process, + as indicated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure[here]. +* The package is being created + so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution + (or coexist between EPEL and RHEL). + The package MUST be properly named + according to the xref:Naming.adoc#_multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name[naming guidelines] + and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. +* The package exists in both Fedora and RHEL, + but the packager wants to ship it in EPEL + under an alternative name + (as required by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy[EPEL policy]) + to provide a subpackage that exists in Fedora + but does not exist (or is not shipped) in RHEL. == Things To Check On Review -There are many many things to check for a review. This list is provided to assist new reviewers in identifying areas that they should look for, but is by no means complete. Reviewers should use their own good judgement when reviewing packages. The items listed fall into two categories: *SHOULD* and *MUST*. +There are many many things to check for a review. +This list is provided to assist new reviewers +in identifying areas that they should look for, +but is by no means complete. +Reviewers should use their own good judgement +when reviewing packages. +The items listed fall into two categories: +*SHOULD* and *MUST*. -* [[rpmlint]]*MUST*: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. See xref:index.adoc#_use_rpmlint[Packaging Guidelines: Use rpmlint] + -* [[naming]] *MUST*: The package must be named according to the xref:Naming.adoc[Package Naming Guidelines] . + -* [[spec-fie-name]] *MUST*: The spec file name must match the base package `+%{name}+`, in the format `+%{name}.spec+` unless your package has an exemption. See xref:index.adoc#_spec_file_naming[Packaging Guidelines: Spec File Naming] . + -* [[packaging-guidelines]] *MUST*: The package must meet the xref:index.adoc[Packaging Guidelines] . + -* [[approved-license]] *MUST*: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc[Licensing Guidelines] . + -* [[license-field]] *MUST*: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. See xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_valid_license_short_names[Licensing Guidelines: Valid License Short Names] + -* [[license-file]] *MUST*: 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 must be included in `+%license+`. See xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_license_text[Licensing Guidelines: License Text] + -* [[spec-in-american-english]] *MUST*: The spec file must be written in American English. See xref:index.adoc#_summary_and_description[Packaging Guidelines: Summary and description] + -* [[legible-spec]] *MUST*: The spec file for the package *MUST* be legible. See xref:index.adoc#_spec_legibility[Packaging Guidelines: Spec Legibility] + -* [[build-sources]] *MUST*: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the `+sources+` file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the xref:SourceURL.adoc[Source URL Guidelines] for how to deal with this. + -* [[successful-build]] *MUST*: The package *MUST* successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See xref:index.adoc#_architecture_support[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Support] + -* [[exclude-arch]] *MUST*: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in `+ExcludeArch+`. Each architecture listed in `+ExcludeArch+` *MUST* have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number *MUST* be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding `+ExcludeArch+` line. See xref:index.adoc#_architecture_build_failures[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Build Failures] + -* [[build-dependencies]] *MUST*: All build dependencies must be listed in `+BuildRequires+`. See xref:index.adoc#buildrequires[Packaging Guidelines: Build-Time Dependencies (BuildRequires)] + -* [[locales]] *MUST*: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the `+%find_lang+` macro. Using `+%{_datadir}/locale/*+` is strictly forbidden. See xref:index.adoc#_handling_locale_files[Packaging Guidelines: Handling Locale Files] + -* [[bundling]] *MUST*: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. See xref:index.adoc#bundling[Packaging Guidelines: Bundling and Duplication of System Libraries] + -* [[relocatable-package]] *MUST*: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. See xref:index.adoc#_relocatable_packages[Packaging Guidelines: Relocatable Packages] + -* [[directory-ownership]] *MUST*: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. See xref:index.adoc#_file_and_directory_ownership[Packaging Guidelines: File And Directory Ownership] + -* [[file-listed-once]] *MUST*: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)See xref:index.adoc#_duplicate_files[Packaging Guidelines: Duplicate Files] + -* [[premissions]] *MUST*: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. See xref:index.adoc#_file_permissions[Packaging Guidelines: File Permissions] + -* [[consistent-macros]] *MUST*: Each package must consistently use macros. See xref:index.adoc#_macros[Packaging Guidelines: Macros] + -* [[permisible-content]] *MUST*: The package must contain code, or permissible content. See xref:what-can-be-packaged.adoc[What Can Be Packaged] + -* [[large-documentation]] *MUST*: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). See xref:index.adoc#_documentation[Packaging Guidelines: Documentation] + -* [[doc-runtime]] *MUST*: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. See xref:index.adoc#_documentation[Packaging Guidelines: Documentation] + -* [[static-libraries]] *MUST*: Static libraries must be in a -static package. See xref:index.adoc#packaging-static-libraries[Packaging Guidelines: Packaging Static Libraries] + -* [[devel-subpackage]] *MUST*: Development files must be in a -devel package. See xref:index.adoc#_devel_packages[Packaging Guidelines: Devel Packages] + -* [[versioned-devel-require]] *MUST*: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: `+Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}+` See xref:index.adoc#_requiring_base_package[Packaging Guidelines: Requiring Base Package] + -* [[la-archives]] *MUST*: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. See xref:index.adoc#packaging-static-libraries[Packaging Guidelines: Packaging Static Libraries] + -* [[desktop-file]] *MUST*: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %\{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. See xref:index.adoc#_desktop_files[Packaging Guidelines: Desktop files] + -* [[file-directory-ownership]] *MUST*: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the `+filesystem+` or `+man+` package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. See xref:index.adoc#_file_and_directory_ownership[Packaging Guidelines: File and Directory Ownership] + -* [[utf-8]] *MUST*: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. See xref:index.adoc#_non_ascii_filenames[Packaging Guidelines: Non-ASCII Filenames] + -* [[deprecated-packages]] *MUST*: Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any packages which have been marked as being deprecated. See xref:deprecating-packages.adoc[Deprecating Packages] + +* [[rpmlint]] *MUST*: + rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. + The output should be posted in the review. + See xref:index.adoc#_use_rpmlint[Packaging Guidelines: Use rpmlint]. +* [[naming]] *MUST*: + The package must be named according to the xref:Naming.adoc[Package Naming Guidelines]. +* [[spec-fie-name]] *MUST*: + The spec file name must match the base package `+%{name}+`, + in the format `+%{name}.spec+` + unless your package has an exemption. + See xref:index.adoc#_spec_file_naming[Packaging Guidelines: Spec File Naming]. +* [[packaging-guidelines]] *MUST*: + The package must meet the xref:index.adoc[Packaging Guidelines]. +* [[approved-license]] *MUST*: + The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license + and meet the xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc[Licensing Guidelines]. +* [[license-field]] *MUST*: + The License field in the package spec file + must match the actual license. + See xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_valid_license_short_names[Licensing Guidelines: Valid License Short Names]. +* [[license-file]] *MUST*: + 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 + must be included in `+%license+`. + See xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_license_text[Licensing Guidelines: License Text]. +* [[spec-in-american-english]] *MUST*: + The spec file must be written in American English. + See xref:index.adoc#_summary_and_description[Packaging Guidelines: Summary and description]. +* [[legible-spec]] *MUST*: + The spec file for the package *MUST* be legible. + See xref:index.adoc#_spec_legibility[Packaging Guidelines: Spec Legibility]. +* [[build-sources]] *MUST*: + The sources used to build the package + must match the upstream source, + as provided in the spec URL. + Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task + as it is used by the `+sources+` file once imported into git. + If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, + please see the xref:SourceURL.adoc[Source URL Guidelines] for how to deal with this. +* [[successful-build]] *MUST*: + The package *MUST* successfully compile and build into binary rpms + on at least one primary architecture. + See xref:index.adoc#_architecture_support[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Support]. +* [[exclude-arch]] *MUST*: + If the package does not successfully compile, + build or work on an architecture, + then those architectures should be listed in the spec in `+ExcludeArch+`. + Each architecture listed in `+ExcludeArch+` *MUST* have a bug filed in bugzilla, + describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. + The bug number *MUST* be placed in a comment, + next to the corresponding `+ExcludeArch+` line. + See xref:index.adoc#_architecture_build_failures[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Build Failures]. +* [[build-dependencies]] *MUST*: + All build dependencies must be listed in `+BuildRequires+`. + See xref:index.adoc#buildrequires[Packaging Guidelines: Build-Time Dependencies (BuildRequires)]. +* [[locales]] *MUST*: + The spec file MUST handle locales properly. + This is done by using the `+%find_lang+` macro. + Using `+%{_datadir}/locale/*+` is strictly forbidden. + See xref:index.adoc#_handling_locale_files[Packaging Guidelines: Handling Locale Files]. +* [[bundling]] *MUST*: + Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + See xref:index.adoc#bundling[Packaging Guidelines: Bundling and Duplication of System Libraries]. +* [[relocatable-package]] *MUST*: + If the package is designed to be relocatable, + the packager must state this fact in the request for review, + along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. + Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. + See xref:index.adoc#_relocatable_packages[Packaging Guidelines: Relocatable Packages]. +* [[directory-ownership]] *MUST*: + A package must own all directories that it creates. + If it does not create a directory that it uses, + then it should require a package + which does create that directory. + See xref:index.adoc#_file_and_directory_ownership[Packaging Guidelines: File And Directory Ownership]. +* [[file-listed-once]] *MUST*: + A Fedora package must not list a file more than once + in the spec file's %files listings. + (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)See xref:index.adoc#_duplicate_files[Packaging Guidelines: Duplicate Files]. +* [[premissions]] *MUST*: + Permissions on files must be set properly. + Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. + See xref:index.adoc#_file_permissions[Packaging Guidelines: File Permissions]. +* [[consistent-macros]] *MUST*: + Each package must consistently use macros. + See xref:index.adoc#_macros[Packaging Guidelines: Macros]. +* [[permisible-content]] *MUST*: + The package must contain code, + or permissible content. + See xref:what-can-be-packaged.adoc[What Can Be Packaged]. +* [[large-documentation]] *MUST*: + Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. + (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, + but is not restricted to size. + Large can refer to either size or quantity). + See xref:index.adoc#_documentation[Packaging Guidelines: Documentation]. +* [[doc-runtime]] *MUST*: + If a package includes something as %doc, + it must not affect the runtime of the application. + To summarize: If it is in %doc, + the program must run properly if it is not present. + See xref:index.adoc#_documentation[Packaging Guidelines: Documentation]. +* [[static-libraries]] *MUST*: + Static libraries must be in a -static package. + See xref:index.adoc#packaging-static-libraries[Packaging Guidelines: Packaging Static Libraries]. +* [[devel-subpackage]] *MUST*: + Development files must be in a -devel package. + See xref:index.adoc#_devel_packages[Packaging Guidelines: Devel Packages]. +* [[versioned-devel-require]] *MUST*: + In the vast majority of cases, + devel packages must require the base package + using a fully versioned dependency: + `+Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}+`. + See xref:index.adoc#_requiring_base_package[Packaging Guidelines: Requiring Base Package]. +* [[la-archives]] *MUST*: + Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, + these must be removed in the spec if they are built. + See xref:index.adoc#packaging-static-libraries[Packaging Guidelines: Packaging Static Libraries]. +* [[desktop-file]] *MUST*: + Packages containing GUI applications must include a %\{name}.desktop file, + and that file must be properly installed + with `desktop-file-install` in the `+%install+` section. + If you feel that your packaged GUI application + does not need a .desktop file, + you must put a comment in the spec file + with your explanation. + See xref:index.adoc#_desktop_files[Packaging Guidelines: Desktop files]. +* [[file-directory-ownership]] *MUST*: + Packages must not own files or directories + that are already owned by other packages. + The rule of thumb here is + that the first package to be installed + should own the files or directories + that other packages may rely upon. + This means, for example, + that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership + with any of the files or directories + owned by the `+filesystem+` or `+man+` package. + If you feel that you have a good reason + to own a file or directory that another package owns, + then please present that at package review time. + See xref:index.adoc#_file_and_directory_ownership[Packaging Guidelines: File and Directory Ownership]. +* [[utf-8]] *MUST*: + All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. + See xref:index.adoc#_non_ascii_filenames[Packaging Guidelines: Non-ASCII Filenames]. +* [[deprecated-packages]] *MUST*: + Packages being added to the distribution + MUST NOT depend on any packages + which have been marked as being deprecated. + See xref:deprecating-packages.adoc[Deprecating Packages]. ''' -* [[upstream-license-file]] *SHOULD*: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. See xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_license_text[Licensing Guidelines: License Text] + -* [[builds-in-mock]] *SHOULD*: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds[Using Mock to test package builds] + -* [[supports-all-architectures]] *SHOULD*: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. See xref:index.adoc#_architecture_support[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Support] + -* [[functions-as-described]] *SHOULD*: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. + -* [[sane-scriplets]] *SHOULD*: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. See xref:index.adoc#_scriptlets[Packaging Guidelines: Scriptlets] + -* [[subpackage-versioned-requires]] *SHOULD*: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. See xref:index.adoc#_requiring_base_package[Packaging Guidelines: Requiring Base Package] + -* [[pkgconfig-in-devel]] *SHOULD*: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. See xref:index.adoc#_pkgconfig_files_foo_pc[Packaging Guidelines: Pkgconfig Files] + -* [[man-pages]] *SHOULD*: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. See xref:index.adoc#_manpages[Packaging Guidelines: Manpages] + +* [[upstream-license-file]] *SHOULD*: + If the source package does not include license text(s) + as a separate file from upstream, + the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. + See xref:LicensingGuidelines.adoc#_license_text[Licensing Guidelines: License Text]. +* [[builds-in-mock]] *SHOULD*: + The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. + See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds[Using Mock to test package builds]. +* [[supports-all-architectures]] *SHOULD*: + The package should compile and build into binary rpms + on all supported architectures. + See xref:index.adoc#_architecture_support[Packaging Guidelines: Architecture Support]. +* [[functions-as-described]] *SHOULD*: + The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. + A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. +* [[sane-scriplets]] *SHOULD*: + If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. + This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. + See xref:index.adoc#_scriptlets[Packaging Guidelines: Scriptlets]. +* [[subpackage-versioned-requires]] *SHOULD*: + Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package + using a fully versioned dependency. + See xref:index.adoc#_requiring_base_package[Packaging Guidelines: Requiring Base Package]. +* [[pkgconfig-in-devel]] *SHOULD*: + The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, + and this is usually for development purposes, + so should be placed in a -devel pkg. + A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself + is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, + e.g. gcc or gdb. + See xref:index.adoc#_pkgconfig_files_foo_pc[Packaging Guidelines: Pkgconfig Files]. +* [[man-pages]] *SHOULD*: + Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. + If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. + See xref:index.adoc#_manpages[Packaging Guidelines: Manpages]. == A note on dependencies -It is often useful to submit a package for review along with its dependencies in separate tickets. As long as the submitter sets up the Depends on: and Blocks: fields in bugzilla properly, this is not an issue, and it is perfectly possible to review these packages before the full dependency chain is in the distribution (by maintaining a local repository, building and installing the packages locally, or maintaining a Copr). +It is often useful to submit a package for review +along with its dependencies in separate tickets. +As long as the submitter sets up the _Depends on:_ and _Blocks:_ fields in BugZilla properly, +this is not an issue, +and it is perfectly possible to review these packages +before the full dependency chain is in the distribution +(by maintaining a local repository, +building and installing the packages locally, +or maintaining a COPR). -However, please keep in mind that you cannot do koji builds if all of the build dependencies are not met (because you cannot provide additional dependencies to koji) and when the time comes to build these packages, they must be built in order and you must wait between builds for the dependencies to make it into the appropriate branch of the distribution. +However, please keep in mind that you cannot do koji builds +unless all of the build dependencies are met +(because you cannot provide additional dependencies to koji) +and when the time comes to build these packages, +they must be built in order +and you must wait between builds for the dependencies +to make it into the appropriate branch of the distribution. This can be automated using side tags and chain builds. -Please also note that while you may actually be able to build a package because all of its build-time dependencies are met, the package may still be non-installable (and thus useless) if its _runtime_ dependencies are not met. A package *MUST* not be built if any of its runtime dependencies are unsatisfied. - -== References to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines +Please also note that while you may actually be able to build a package +because all of its build-time dependencies are met, +the package may still be non-installable (and thus useless) +if its _runtime_ dependencies are not met. +A package *MUST* not be built +if any of its runtime dependencies are unsatisfied. From 0e84bad929349eeb7ced0a11d995c6aafce12cec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fabio Valentini Date: May 01 2025 16:26:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ReviewGuidelines: rules for new packages for existing components --- diff --git a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc index 5de7e3e..e15cbe8 100644 --- a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc +++ b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ whenever items are unclear, and if in doubt, ask on the https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging.lists.fedoraproject.org/[Fedora packaging list] . -== Package Review Process +== Package Review Exceptions Contributors and reviewers MUST follow the https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/[Package Review Process], @@ -31,6 +31,28 @@ with the following exceptions: to provide a subpackage that exists in Fedora but does not exist (or is not shipped) in RHEL. +== Relaxed rules for existing components + +Some guidelines that apply to "new" packages +do not need to be applied when reviewing packages +that are only _"added"_ to the distribution +in the sense that the name of the _source package_ is "new" +but the component was already available +from an existing package, i.e. when + +* renaming an existing package, +* moving a subcomponent from an existing package + into a separate source package, +* adding an alternative version ("compat package") + of an existing package, or +* adding an EPEL-only alternative version + of an existing package. + +For example, it is allowed for a _"new"_ package like this +to depend on packages marked as `+deprecated()+` +because no _actually new_ component +will depend on the deprecated package. + == Things To Check On Review There are many many things to check for a review.