Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Good Alaskan Evening! Do you have proof for this bold and suspicious claim? > I don't technically need a review for this, but I'd love an informal > review from someone before i push this into Extras cvs.. I'd be happy to help there since I couldn't do an official review for you anyway (yet). > If you want to give me some feedback please take a look at the srpm, > spec and fc6 noarch package for version 0.12.2 located at: > > http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/gourmet/ I poked through the spec file and here are some things I think could be changed to bring the spec up to date with respect to the current recommended practices (meaning minor nits are all I could find to nag you about :). > Requires: python-abi ... There's no need to require python-abi any more according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python . > Requires: pygtk2 > 2.3 The version of pygtk2 available for FC5 is 2.8, is there a need to have the requires versioned still? (If you're looking to use this spec on RHEL that might be a good reason, though I don't know what versions of RHEL ship with what versions of PyGTK.) > Summary: PyGTK Recipe Manager Is it necessary to have PyGTK in there? Does an average user care what libraries the app was built for/with? I don't know, I'm genuinely curious about this. If it were me I'd use either Recipe Manager or Recipe Manager for Gnome. The krecipes package doesn't mention KDE or QT in it's summary or description (though the ever present and highly original k in the name sort of gives that away. ;) And a personal preference, indent the continued lines in the python install and desktop file install areas. The package passes all of the relevant MUST items in the review guidelines. It built cleanly in mock and installed for FC6. I even added a recipe for "Alaskan Santa Mouse Fudge." :) > I haven't decided what to do about the desktop file. Can anyone give > me a compelling reason to move it out of "Other" and into which > category to put it? Well, is "Other sucks <insert gross animal parts here> as a menu category" compelling? When I installed Gourmet a while back I found it odd and annoying that it hid itself there. Accessories made more sense to me and I moved it there on my system. The f.d.o. menu spec[1] defines the Utility (Accessories) keyword as a "small utility application" which I think Gourmet can easily be called. While Accessories isn't perfect, it beats Other, especially when there is only one item in Other. Another possibility is to put it in Office. The package group is Applications/Productivity, and depending on how loosely one defines their office, it could potentially fit in that category. I think that's much less preferable to Accessories though. [1] http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== I don't mind arguing with myself. It's when I lose that it bothers me. -- Richard Powers
Attachment:
pgpVKieDVcihM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
