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: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211729 ------- Additional Comments From rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-12 08:39 EST ------- 1. package meets naming and packaging guidelines. 2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. 3. dist tag is present. 4. build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 5. license field matches the actual license. 6. license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. 7. source files match upstream: 5d871e40dc93c04e60688a06e0e143e8 museek+-0.1.12.tar.bz2 8. latest version is being packaged. 9. BuildRequires are proper. 10. package builds in mock (fc6 i386). 11. rpmlint is NOT silent. W: museek+ strange-permission museek-launcher 0775 W: museek+ macro-in-%changelog _datadir 12. final provides and requires are sane: museek+-0.1.12-2.fc6.i386.rpm: _mucipherc.so museek+ = 0.1.12-2.fc6 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/env /usr/bin/python libX11.so.6 libc.so.6 libfam.so.0 libgcc_s.so.1 libglib-2.0.so.0 libglibmm-2.4.so.1 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libm.so.6 libnsl.so.1 libogg.so.0 libpthread.so.0 libqt-mt.so.3 libsigc-2.0.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libvorbis.so.0 libvorbisfile.so.3 libxml++-2.6.so.2 libxml2.so.2 libz.so.1 python(abi) = 2.4 museek+-0.1.12-2.fc6.src.rpm: (none) = desktop-file-utils python-devel libxml++-devel qt-devel gamin-devel swig libvorbis-devel PyXML pygtk2-devel scons 13. no shared libraries are present. 14. package is not relocatable. 15. owns the directories it creates. 16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. 17. no duplicates in %files. 18. file permissions are appropriate (?) -> see 11. 19. %clean is present. 20. %check is not present and no testsuite present 21. no scriptlets present. 22. code, not content. 23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. 24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. 25. no headers. 26. no pkgconfig files. 27. no libtool .la droppings. 28. not a GUI app. 29. not a web app. Please fix 11. -- 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