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=677804 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-16 15:11:50 EDT --- MUST items: - rpmlint output: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - package name: OK - spec file name: OK - packaging guidelines: OK - licensing guidelines: OK - license field: OK - license file: OK - American English: OK - spec file legible: OK - source file matches upstream: OK, both have md5sum 926e5a7524a218ff662cca2faee9e89f - builds on at least one primary arch: OK, tried x86_64 - use of ExcludeArch: N/A - all build requirements in BuildRequires: OK - use of find_lang: OK - use of ldconfig: N/A (there are shared libraries, but they're private) - no copies of system libraries: OK - relocatable package: N/A - package owns all directories it creates: OK - no duplicates in %files: OK - proper permissions: OK - consistent use of macros: OK - code or permissible content: OK - large documentation in -doc: N/A - no runtime deps in %doc: OK - header files in -devel: N/A - static libraries in -static: N/A - .so libraries in -devel: N/A (there are .so files, but they're private) - -devel requires the base package: N/A - no libtool archives: OK - GUI application has a .desktop file: The package review guideline says: "Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section." This package meets the first part of the requirement, but does not use desktop-file-install. Is there a reason for that? If not, please use desktop-file-install. - do not own files/dirs owned by other packages: OK - filenames are UTF-8: OK SHOULD items: - ask upstream to include license file: N/A - description and summary include translations: this has not been done. It is possible to do so by extracting either the "Typing Monitor" or "A computer break reminder." strings from the po files, although I understand that that could be a laborious process. I won't insist on this. - package builds in mock: built on Rawhide, but not yet in mock. Will do that soon and report the results in my next update to this bug. - package builds on all supported arches: did not test (x86_64 only) - program functions as described: OK (only did some simple stuff with it) - sane scriptlets: OK - subpackages require main package: N/A - placement of pkgconfig files: N/A - file dependencies: N/A - man pages for binaries: N/A (no command-line binaries in this package) Finally, I think the following are needed: Requires(post): coreutils glib2 Requires(postun): coreutils glib2 gtk2 Requires(posttrans): gtk2 -- 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