[Bug 518900] Review Request: desktop-effects - Switch GNOME window management and effects

[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=518900


Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

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




--- Comment #4 from Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx>  2009-08-24 08:07:52 EDT ---
================== REVIEW ==================
[+] source files match upstream: c05c44d0f4b0c1749a54f91eb1257cce4fc38881
[+] 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 field matches the actual license.
[+] license is open source-compatible: GPLv2+
[+] license text included in package.
[+] latest version is being packaged.
[+] BuildRequires are proper.
[+] compiler flags are appropriate.
[+] %clean is present.
[+] package builds in koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1628777
[+] package installs properly.
[+] debuginfo package looks complete.
[+] rpmlint is silent.
[+] final provides and requires are sane:
 desktop-effects = 0.8.0-2.fc12
 desktop-effects(x86-64) = 0.8.0-2.fc12
 ----
 /bin/sh  
 /bin/sh  
 gnome-session  
 hicolor-icon-theme  
 libX11.so.6()(64bit)  
 libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit)  
 libXfixes.so.3()(64bit)  
 libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)  
 libc.so.6()(64bit)  
 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)  
 libcairo.so.2()(64bit)  
 libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)  
 libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)  
 libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit)  
 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)  
 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)  
 libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)  
 libglade-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)  
 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)  
 libpthread.so.0()(64bit)  
 libxml2.so.2()(64bit)  
 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
 rtld(GNU_HASH)  
 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
[+] 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.
[+] scriptlets are sane.
[+] 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.
================== COMMENTS ==================

Looks fine => 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]