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: gnome-phone-manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758 ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-01 02:04 EST ------- There is at least one instance where you use 'rm', and then '%{__rm}'. The guidelines require that you use one or the other form consistently. ("MUST") Also, the package fails to build under mock: /usr/bin/ld: warning: libplds4.so, needed by /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so, not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link) /usr/bin/ld: warning: libplc4.so, needed by /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so, not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link) /usr/bin/ld: warning: libnspr4.so, needed by /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so, not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link) /usr/bin/ld: warning: libssl3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0, not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link) /usr/bin/ld: warning: libsmime3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0, not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link) /usr/bin/ld: warning: libnss3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0, not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link) /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0: undefined reference to `NSS_InitReadWrite@xxxxxxx' (Full log attached.) I suspect this is due to nspr & nss not being buildrequires'ed, from the names of the libraries being referenced. Additionally, are the scriptlets necessary? The .desktop file does not have a MimeType entry (see wiki: ScriptletSnippets). In any case, desktop-file-utils should not be required for the scriptlets and the scriptlets should be tolerant of the desktop-file-utils not being installed. After installing, I find I have two entries for the app in my menus. X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (release tag). X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. + Package URL is browsable. + 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: 951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9 gnome-phone-manager-0.7.tar.bz2 951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9 gnome-phone-manager-0.7.tar.bz2.srpm + latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires are proper. X package builds in mock (devel/x86_64). + rpmlint is silent. X final provides and requires are sane: == provides gnome-phone-manager = 0.7-2.fc5 == requires /bin/sh X desktop-file-utils libICE.so.6()(64bit) libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libbluetooth.so.1()(64bit) libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit) libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit) libbtctl.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libebook-1.2.so.5()(64bit) libedataserver-1.2.so.7()(64bit) libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnokii.so.2()(64bit) libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit) libgnomebt.so.0()(64bit) libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(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. X %check is not present, but there are no tests X non-sane 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 desktop file installs correctly. + not a web app. -- 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