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=554760 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-24 05:41:53 EDT --- Sorry it took so long, somehow I this dropped of my radar. (In reply to comment #3) > Since the executable already depends on GNOME components, I don't think there > is such benefits in terms of dependencies to package the applet separately for > non-GNOME users. You are right, the executable already imports gnomeapplet, so there is not much we can do to avoid a dependency on gnome-panel. REVIEW for 383cc581f8cc27172df8e08a957b1244 x-tile-1.4-1.fc12.src.rpm OK - MUST: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/x-tile-1.4-1.fc14.* x-tile.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libbonobo x-tile.src:50: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo/servers x-tile.src:51: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo/servers x-tile.src:84: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/bonobo/servers/*.server 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings. All these can be ignored. The package is noarch, so lib must always be lib but not lib64. 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: GPLv2+ OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - 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 3f8b113426ee679ce26f2ece0e76a807 OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 (noarch package) N/A - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. OK - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK - MUST: Package does not bundle copies of system libraries. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content 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: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly validated desktop-file-validate in the %install section. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - 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, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures (noarch). OK - SHOULD: functions as described. OK - SHOULD: 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: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid OK - docs complete Issues: - Some lines in description are longer than 80 characters (81). I wonder why rpmlint didn't catch this. - I usually prefer install over cp because it can set the permissions as well. But this is your decision. Please fix the description and consider the package 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review