Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486476 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-19 21:38:22 EDT --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPLv2+) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 923d4dba39b1f313631b636e7b5d772d xfce4-power-manager-0.6.2.tar.bz2 923d4dba39b1f313631b636e7b5d772d xfce4-power-manager-0.6.2.tar.bz2.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package obey's FHS standard (except for 2 exceptions) See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane. SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version OK - Should not use file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Issues: 1. rpmlint says: xfce4-power-manager.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/xfce4-power-manager.desktop I think this can be ignored. No one should be editing xdg autostart files should they? 2. Don't include a --vendor in the desktop file install, per: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Or is --vendor="" the same as no vendor? I don't see any other blockers here... if you can address the --vendor thing before importing that could be good, otherwise this package is APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review