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: devilspie https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=203288 ------- Additional Comments From bdpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-08-22 11:15 EST ------- MD5Sums: 2479a3fe9be3d7666c7f44605fa331c9 devilspie-0.17.1.tar.gz Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Group Tag is from the official list * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * All necessary BuildRequires listed. * All desired features are enabled * Make succeeds even when %{_smp_mflags} is defined * Files have appropriate permissions and owners * Rpmlint does not find problems * Package installs and uninstalls cleanly Minor: * Duplicate BuildRequires: gtk2-devel (by libwnck-devel), pango-devel (by libwnck-devel), atk-devel (by gtk2-devel) Suggestions: * I would remove the 'For example' line from the description, since it seems unnecessary. * Shorten the summary line. I would remove the 'inspired by' portion of it. This package looks good, but before sponsoring you, I would like to see you review a few packages so I get a feel for your knowledge of FE packing guidelines. For more information refer to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored -- 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