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: xgalaga - Galaga clone for X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191582 ------- Additional Comments From chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx 2006-05-21 19:32 EST ------- * rpmlint output clean * Package meets Package Naming Guidelines * Spec filename matches base package %{name} * Package meets Packaging Guidelines * Package licensed with open source compatible license * License in spec matches actual license * License text included in %doc * Spec file written in American English * Spec file is legible * Sources match upstream 9f7ee685e9c4741b5f0edc3f91df9510 xgalaga_2.0.34.orig.tar.gz 9f7ee685e9c4741b5f0edc3f91df9510 xgalaga_2.0.34.orig.tar.gz * Package successfully compiles and builds on FC5 x86_64 O Package has all BR except libXxf86vm-devel which I needed to add for it to compile * Package does not have any locales * Package does not contain any shared library files * Package is not relocatable * Package owns all directories it creates * Package does not contain any duplicate files in %files * File permissions are set properly * Package contains proper %clean section * Macro usage consistant enough - I notice you use %{__sed}, but don't bother using %{__make} or %{__rm} etc.. * Package contains permissble content * Package does not contain large documentation to warrent a seperate package * Package does not contain header files, libraries or .pc files * Package does not contain any .so files * Package does not require or use a -devel package * Package does not contain any .la files * Package adds an appropriate .desktop entry * Package does not own any files or directories owned by other packages *** MUST *** - You MUST figure out why FC5 needs to add a BuildRequires of libXxf86vm-devel and why this is not needed for your build (presumably FC6) Non-blocking SHOULDs: - Be more consistant with macro usage, for example %{__sed}, but no %{__rm} etc. - I also prefer %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but that is a matter of preference. I just think spec files look cleaner when everything consistantly uses %{} format. So basically I'm saying you should use a clean more legible consistant style in your spec files, but I'm not going to say this is a blocker or should be fixed, just a suggestion. - Let me know that the name xgalaga isn't going to be a problem with Namco. I've heard the Lgames are not allowed because the names are too close to the original, is this going to be a problem? - Return the favor by reviewing some of my packages ;-) -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review