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=545720 --- Comment #3 from Mario Ceresa <mrceresa@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-09 08:38:39 EDT --- Ehi cool! then I'll finish reviewing it: * 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. It seems that none is available from homepage * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Ok * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. As the package is marked as noarch, this should be n.a. as well * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. __NOTE__ After installing and configuring, there is no tray icon/or is invisible and nothing happens. There are a couple of bugs related to this upstream though so it is not a packaging problem: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2911136&group_id=277278&atid=1177508 * 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. 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. n.a. ***************Summary: Everything seem ok, except for the problem I had in executing it (but see earlier in the SHOULD list). The authors specify dependencies on python >= 2.6 and pygtk2 >= 2.14: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/googsystray/index.php?title=Installation I tried to remove the Requires line and the python dependence is picked up correctly but pygtk2 is not. My proposal is to remove python from the Requires and put pygtk2 >= 2.14. But it might be not needed to put the full version as my two f11 and f12 machines have these dependencies already satisfied. Peter, what do you think about this? If the problem in usage and the version are not blockers I think to approve the package. Cheers, Mario -- 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