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=497525 Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |bubblemon-gnome - Bubbling |gnome-applet-bubblemon - |Load Monitoring Applet for |Bubbling Load Monitoring |the GNOME Panel |Applet for the GNOME Panel --- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-29 17:22:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > - gettext (where I decided to follow the suggestions in the Packaging > Guidelines), and Ok, didn't remember that > - the conversion of the two manpages (languages sv and hu) since they are > already included by the upstream maintainer in the upcoming next release and > these files have a small target audience which should have the used character > encoding anyway. Ok, I guess we should trust the translators here. Hope it gets fixed upstream though. (In reply to comment #6) > This is a valid comment. I'm only wondering why the generated template spec > file does not include the part INSTALL="install -p". Some Makefiles already use the -p option by default, but not this one. Others don't understand the INSTALL parameter and will fail. REVIEW FOR gnome-applet-bubblemon-2.0.13-3.fc10.src.rpm OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv2+ OK - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc. OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English. OK - MUST: The spec file for the package is legible. OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package match the upstream source by MD5 0f0e72376c112126f0b0d1487ac7c57c OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on all archs http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1321531 N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly with the %find_lang macro. N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates. (None) OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line. OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application. N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - MUST: 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. N/A - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: The package contains a Gnome panel plugin, whcih needs no desktop-file-install OK - MUST: The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot}. OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: N/A - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. FAIL - SHOULD: The the package builds in mock on F-10, but not F-11 and F-12 OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: The package functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. N/A - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Issues - mock build for F-11 and F-12 fails, see http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1329436 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1329461 - SourceURL not found, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Referencing_Source We need a downloadable URL in the Source0 tag, use spectool to verify. - Minor: When renaming the package you forgot the comment at the head of the spec Regarding your sponsorship: Do you have any other packages or have you participated in other reviews? -- 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