[Bug 492690] Review Request: kvirc - KVIrc is a free portable IRC client

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=492690


Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #17 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov@xxxxxxxxx>  2009-04-08 04:03:17 EDT ---
Now everything seems fine. Here is the review:

+ rpmlint output without serious errors:
kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/tool/sharedfilewindow
kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/tool/iograph
kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/tool/filetransferwindow
kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/tool/logview
kvirc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/kvirc/4.0/modules/caps/action/url
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings.

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
  Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ File, containing the text of the licenses for the package is included in
  %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
  one supported architecture (x86_64).
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ Spec file handles locales properly (%find_lang doesn't work here).
+ Package call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does not designed to be relocatable.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ A package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
  listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ Does not contain large documentation files.
+ Includes only doc files in %doc.
+ No headers.
+ No static libraries.
+ The package does not contain pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then
  library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
+ No devel packages.
+ The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
+ Includes %{name}.desktop file. Properly installed with desktop-file-install.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
  packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}.
+ All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8.
+ Package builds in mock.
+ Package functions as described even with QT 4.5.
+ Scriptlets are sane.


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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]