[Bug 635788] Review Request: nautilus-terminal - Terminal embedded in Nautilus

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=635788

Arun SAG <sagarun@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #6 from Arun SAG <sagarun@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-29 13:41:38 EDT ---
complete review:

+ = OK
- = NA
? = issue


+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.

+ Sources match upstream md5sum:
[zer0c00l@gnubox SPECS]$ md5sum  nautilus-terminal_0.7_src.tar.gz 
68cecfb4cfb818a1dd0ffed759e7122d  nautilus-terminal_0.7_src.tar.gz
[zer0c00l@gnubox SPECS]$ md5sum
~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/nautilus-terminal_0.7_src.tar.gz 
68cecfb4cfb818a1dd0ffed759e7122d 
/home/zer0c00l/rpmbuild/SOURCES/nautilus-terminal_0.7_src.tar.gz


- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
+ Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
+ Package has a correct %clean section.
+ Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ Package is code or permissible content.
- Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.

- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2497104

+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
? No rpmlint output.

- final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =;
rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line.  I also remove the rpmlib junk and
anything provided by glibc.)

SHOULD Items:

+ Should build in mock.
+ Should build on all supported archs
+ Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
+ Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

rpmlint output:
---------------------
[zer0c00l@gnubox nautilus-terminal-0.7]$ rpmlint
~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/nautilus-terminal-0.7-1.fc13.i686.rpm 
nautilus-terminal.i686: E: no-binary
nautilus-terminal.i686: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

This is not an issue.Looks good to me.


XXXXXXXXXX APPROVED XXXXXXXXXX

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]