Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lucidlife https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177881 ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-02-19 10:49 EST ------- I don't have permission to sponser you, but here's an initial review: MD5Sum: 25bcde0ddbe4f7db4a7ea92fcc36b7bc lucidlife-0.9.tar.gz Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * Package builds fine in Mock for FC5. * Rpmlint does not find problems * Installs & runs fine. Bad: * Desktop file is not handled correctly. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755 Minor: * Drop the Requires for gtk2 & gnome-vfs2, the devel sonames will pull these in. * Should probably use %{_datadir}/%{name}/ in the files section in case of problems with file ownership. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
