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: vnc-reflector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194560 ------- Additional Comments From jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-14 08:29 EST ------- Since I was bored, Chris strong-armed me into reviewing a package. ;-) First off, I've heard that you should use "dl.sf.net" for SourceForge-hosted downloads, as opposed to a particular mirror. You might want to do that. Since I'm fairly new to reviewing, I'm going to use the Review Guidelines as a checklist. I apologize for the verbosity. :-) 1. rpmlint returned nothing. We like that. 2. This adds functionality to vnc, and isn't particularly useful without it. Ergo, I think it meets the Naming Guideline for addon packages. 3. Spec filename is vnc-reflector.spec, check. 4. As far as I can tell, this package meets all of the requirements of the Packaging Guidelines. 5. Good: BSD license. 6. ...verified by upstream's site. 7. LICENSE included in %doc, good. 8. Looks like American English to me. 9. Spec seems quite clearly written. 10. Tarball MD5 matches upstream (c3f88bc62f228b335c25c07f9744ab0c). 11. Package builds fine on i386, ppc, and sparc (sorry, I don't have an x86_64 box). 12. n/a 13. BuildReqs look fairly sane. 14. n/a, I think. 15. n/a (no shared libs) 16. n/a 17. Owns its docs directory. 18. No duplicate files. 19. Permissions look good. 20. Has correct %clean section. 21. Macro use appears consistent. 22. Package contains code, not content. 23. n/a, very little documentation. 24. %doc files are non-critical. 25-30. n/a 31. I'm fairly certain its file ownership doesn't overlap with any other packages. 32-33. n/a 34. Built in Plague, actually. 35. I can't verify x86_64, but it should. 36. Connected to a VNC server through it. (And accidentally left it running for two hours with no problems.) Yay, it works! 37. n/a, no scriptlets. 38. n/a, no subpackages. Unless anyone can find anything I missed or screwed up, I think this package can be APPROVED. -- 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