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: scite - Scintilla based text editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193787 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-03 20:30 EST ------- I was not aware of your community involvement. I think folks who need sponsors should be encouraged to tell us these kinds of things. I will be happy to sponsor you; go ahead and request cvsextras membership. Note: desktop-file-install logs the following warning: /var/tmp/scite-1.69-2.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/share/applications/fedora-SciTE.desktop: warning: non-standard key "MultipleArgs" lacks the "X-" prefix I believe this should be removed. It seems to be something that was in use some time ago but no longer. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 3f84986922ccf9c21a1481ba85153be6 scite169.tgz 3f84986922ccf9c21a1481ba85153be6 scite169.tgz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: scite = 1.69-2.fc6 - libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. X GUI app, with desktop file. But desktop-file-install complains as above. -- 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