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: paraview - Parallel visualization application https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187932 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-04-09 12:31 EST ------- I believe you are right about using the included VTK. In that case it is unlikely that the included VTK will become too old, on the contrary it seems to be newer than the released VTK. * it would be nice to have a .desktop file * rpmlint give some ignorable warnings: W: paraview-data no-documentation W: paraview-demos no-documentation rpmlint is also unhappy with the debuginfo package. There are lots of 'objdump failed', that I don't know how to solve, but there are also some errors, because lots of source files have the executable bit set. It could be possible to chmod -x everything ending in .h .c .cxx. Could be done later, however. * I would have chosed BSD-like for the licence, but Distributable is ok too. * I don't know how much the -data and other packages are coupled. But if they are the specific version release should be required, like Requires: %{name}-data = %{version}-%{release} * right name, follow packaging guidelines * don't distribute unowned directory * other items are right NEEDSWORK: there are many man pages distributed in the paraview-mpi package, and some cmake files that I believe shouldn't be packaged, the man pages refer to non existant header files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
