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: gq - Graphical LDAP directory browser and editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190213 ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-19 19:00 EST ------- Thanks, you are pretty fast with your update. You will have to update your package if there will be a language pacak for 1.2.2. Anyway, here we go: REVIEW for c1b303242245dd6fc2c04bb1a9d020b6 gq-1.2.2-1.fc6.src.rpm FAIL - rpmlint isn't happy with your srpm: $ rpmlint gq-1.2.2-1.fc6.src.rpm W: gq patch-not-applied Patch01: gq-1.2.1-desktop.patch This is because the patch is defined as Patch01:, but it's called with %patch1. You should change it to Patch0: anyway, since it's the first patch. Same for Source: and Source01:, should be Source0: and Source1: instead. rpmlint on the binaries is clean. OK - package meets naming guidelines OK - specfile named correctly OK - package meets packaging guidelines OK - license open-source compatible (GPL) OK - license included in source OK - license field in specfile machtes actual license OK - license included in %doc OK - specfile in American English OK - specfile is legible OK - source matches upstream OK - package builds for Core 6 on i386 OK - BuildRequires are correct, not exeptions, no duplicates OK - locales are handled correctly with %find_lang.sh OK - package is not relocatable OK - package owns all directories that it creates OK - no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - permissions are set properly, correct %defattr: OK - %clean section present OK - macro usage consistent (using macro style) OK - code, not content OK - no large docs OK - docs don't affect the program's runtime OK - no headers static libs or pc files OK - no need for a devel package OK - no libtool archives OK - package correctly uses desktop-file-install OK - package doesn't own dirs already owned by other packages OK - package works as described OK - package uses scriptlets from the wiki FAIL - package doesn't build in mock, an error occurs while building the locales: > Making all in po > make[2]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gq-1.2.2/po' > file=`echo cs | sed 's,.*/,,'`.gmo \ > && rm -f $file && -o $file cs.po > /bin/sh: line 1: -o: command not found > make[2]: *** [cs.gmo] Error 127 > make[2]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gq-1.2.2/po' > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/gq-1.2.2' > make: *** [all] Error 2 > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.23553 (%build) the 4th line should be > && rm -f $file && /usr/bin/msgfmt -o $file cs.po You need to BuildRequire gettext to provide msgfmt. FIX - Remove the line about desktop-file-utils from changelog entry of 1.2.1-3. The line is wrong, desktop-file-utils is still included in your spec and this is correct. Simply drop that line. FIX - Although the package builds in mock you should add a buildrequirement on libgcrypt-devel (configure checks for /usr/bin/libgcrypt-config) FIX? - You should also consider libgpg-error-devel, it's used if available too. I have to admit don't know if it adds any value to the package, but IMO it can't hurt. MINOR - After you have removed useless macros you can also replace "%{__cp} -p" with a simple "cp" (when copying LINGUAS) MINOR - IMHO %post and %postun should not be after the %files section MINOR - You can make %post and %post un a little smarter > %post -p update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime &> /dev/null || : > > %postun -p update-mime-database %{_datadir}/mime &> /dev/null || : This has the advantage the rpm will automagically care for the requirement on update-mime-database/shared-mime-info Please fix the blockers (FAIL and FIX), so that I can approve the package. -- 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