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: codeblocks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-09 19:55 EST ------- I can't check the upstream source. Could you provide a quick script in the package for grabbing the source from the repository and generating the tarball? I know if won't compare the same due to directory timestamps but I can at least do a recursive diff. Any reason why you don't use the %configure macro instead of listing out that long configure line? /usr/lib64/codeblocks seems to be unowned. You don't seem to install the desktop file properly. Generally you should use desktop-file-install. X source files match upstream (can't check) * 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. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: codeblocks-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6.x86_64.rpm libastyle.so()(64bit) libautosave.so()(64bit) libclasswizard.so()(64bit) libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit) libcodecompletion.so()(64bit) libcompiler.so()(64bit) libdebuggergdb.so()(64bit) libdefaultmimehandler.so()(64bit) libscriptedwizard.so()(64bit) libtodo.so()(64bit) codeblocks = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libcodeblocks.so.0()(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) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.3)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) codeblocks-contrib-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6.x86_64.rpm libbyogames.so()(64bit) libcb_koders.so()(64bit) libcodesnippets.so()(64bit) libcodestat.so()(64bit) libdragscroll.so()(64bit) libenvvars.so()(64bit) libexporter.so()(64bit) libhelp_plugin.so()(64bit) libkeybinder.so()(64bit) libprofiler.so()(64bit) libwxsmith.so()(64bit) codeblocks-contrib = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 = codeblocks = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_baseu_net-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_baseu_xml-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_core-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6.2)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_html-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_qa-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0()(64bit) libwx_gtk2u_xrc-2.6.so.0(WXU_2.6)(64bit) codeblocks-devel-1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6.x86_64.rpm codeblocks-devel = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 = codeblocks = 1.0-0.7.20060902svn2944.fc6 libcodeblocks.so.0()(64bit) pkgconfig * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths; ldconfig is called as necessary and unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * package is not relocatable. X owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * header files are content used by the package. * pkgconfig file is in the -devel package. * no libtool .la droppings. X desktop file does not seem to be installed properly. -- 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