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: kdirstat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196007 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-28 22:58 EST ------- I don't like your dependency on /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common; it might not work the way you expect. Your library dependencies will pull in kdelibs, which will provide that directory, so there's no need to depend on it. Technically you don't need to own /usr/share/apps/kconf_update either, because kdelibs owns it, but most kde applications seem to own that directory so I don't see a problem with it. You have post and postun requirements for desktop-file-utils but you don't call desktop-file-install either in %post or %postun. You should just remove them. So two blockers that I see. 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: 58dd06602bed70936ece233bd8c32f2a kdirstat-2.5.3.tar.bz2 * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: kdirstat = 2.5.3-2.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl X /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/common desktop-file-utils libDCOP.so.4()(64bit) libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libacl.so.1()(64bit) libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit) libattr.so.1()(64bit) libfam.so.0()(64bit) libidn.so.11()(64bit) libkdecore.so.4()(64bit) libkdefx.so.4()(64bit) libkdesu.so.4()(64bit) libkdeui.so.4()(64bit) libkio.so.4()(64bit) libkwalletclient.so.1()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libqt-mt.so.3()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) perl(Encode) perl(English) perl(Fcntl) perl(Getopt::Std) perl(URI::Escape) perl(strict) perl(vars) 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. * scriptlets present are OK (gtk-update-icon-cache) * 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. * GUI app; .desktop file looks OK and is installed properly. -- 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