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=495420 --- Comment #2 from Felix Kaechele <felix@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-26 08:07:05 EDT --- So here's my review: Here's what I checked and what is OK: source files match upstream: 41d7fb2afe921ec82e040773757d0b1c6257285c rapid-photo-downloader-0.0.8~b7.tar.gz 41d7fb2afe921ec82e040773757d0b1c6257285c ../SOURCES/rapid-photo-downloader-0.0.8~b7.tar.gz package meets naming and versioning guidelines. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. dist tag is present. build root is correct. license is open source-compatible: GPLv2+ license text not included upstream. latest version is being packaged. BuildRequires are proper. compiler flags are appropriate. %clean is present. package builds in mock. package installs properly. rpmlint is silent. final provides and requires are sane: [felix@polaris result]$ rpm -q --provides rapid-photo-downloader rapid-photo-downloader = 0.0.8-2.b7.fc11 [felix@polaris result]$ rpm -q --requires rapid-photo-downloader /usr/bin/python gnome-python2 gnome-python2-gconf gtk2 hicolor-icon-theme notify-python pyexiv2 pygtk2 python(abi) = 2.6 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. owns the directories it creates. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. 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. desktop files valid and installed properly. Here's what I found what seems do need some work: license field matches the actual license: the spec says GPLv2 but the code seems to be GPLv2+ since no specific requirements are mentioned that it is v2 only the spec installs icons but the icon cache is not updated. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets As soon as these problems are addressed I'll approve the package. -- 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