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: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213193 ------- Additional Comments From wart@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-02 21:40 EST ------- GOOD ==== * rpmlint output clean * Package named appropriately * Source matches upstream: a9e836986dae7857b408120782264d5a gaim-rhythmbox-2.0beta3.tar.gz * Builds in mock on FC6-i386, FC6-x86_64, FC7-i386, FC7-x86_64 * GPL license ok, license file included * Spec file legible and in Am. English. * Runs without crashing. Seems to work as expected with my AIM account. * No missing BR: * No locales * Not relocatable * Not a gui app; no need for a .desktop file * No need to run ldconfig; .so files are application plugins that aren't part of the system linker path. * Directory ownership ok * No duplicate %files * No need for -doc or -devel subpackages MUSTFIX ======= * Inconsistent use of the custom 'prever' macro. You only use it once in %prep, but not at all in Source0 or Release. Either use it in all 3 places, or not at all. NOTES ===== * You could also include AUTHORS and README in %doc * There's no need to split each sentence in %description into a separate paragraph. It just adds unnecessary whitespace and doesn't make it any easier to read. * Send the configure patch upstream so that it can be included in the final release. * I wouldn't worry about the shared library dependencies in the .so file. If you run ldd on the gaim executable itself, you'll see an almost-identical list of dependencies. Not much here. Just fix the use of the prever macro and you're good to go. -- 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