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=532779 --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-03 19:44:31 EDT --- REVIEW for 7f6282bd6420f2ac611fd5a33e7b28a1 gtraffic-1.01-2.fc11.src.rpm OK - MUST: rpmlint silent OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines: GPLv3+ OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license N/A - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 4e3b45e8bbc7c111ee277944da754f80 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on all arches OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun N/A - MUST: Not designed to be relocatable (none) OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code 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, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives OK - MUST: The package contains a GUI application and includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: 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 valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: N/A - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages OK - SHOULD: builds in mock OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures OK - SHOULD: functions as described N/A - SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files 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. Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid N/A - Compiler flags ok N/A - Debuginfo complete Issues: - Missing Requires: gnome-python2-gconf (this will also pull in all other deps such as pygtk2) - require NetworkManager (or even NetworkManager-gnome) - Description: change "network manager" to "NetworkManager" - I'm not really happy with %{_bindir}/trafficd. How about renaming it to gtrafficd? Just an idea and only if it doesn't cause too much trouble. -- 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