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: gnomeradio - Graphical FM-Tuner program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177105 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-06 16:25 EST ------- OK, this should be easy because of all of the other review work. It looks like your BuildRequires: pkgconfig is not strictly necessary on FC6 at least, but i doesn't harm anything. rpmlint only says: W: gnomeradio non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/gnomeradio.schemas which in this case is bogus. It looks like /usr/share/omf is unowned; I don't see anything in the dependency chain that would create it. It seems that a whole pile of packages own it already, so it seems the expectation is that you should own it as well. * source files match upstream: 07b9d511f79e38f114af51cc7bfc014a gnomeradio-1.6.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: gnomeradio = 1.6-2.fc6 = /bin/sh GConf2 libICE.so.6()(64bit) libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit) libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit) libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit) libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit) libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit) libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) liblirc_client.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) scrollkeeper * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * package is not relocatable. ? owns the directories it creates (/usr/share/omf?) * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets present are OK (gconf schema installation, scrollkeeper-update) * 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. * GUI app; desktop file looks to be installed properly. So it's just the /usr/share/omf thing that needs fixing or clarification. -- 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