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: krename - Powerful batch file renamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220210 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-28 05:08 EST ------- Though I am not willing, I will attach a detail for sumbitter's benefit. >From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines = Naming of this package is good = License documentation is included = License is OSI approved = License documentation is actually consistent with the ones actually used in source files. = No shareware data is included = No patents issue is found = This is not a emulators = This is not a binary firmware = No libexecdir files is needed as no wrapper scripts are needed = rpmlint is silent = Changelog entry is proper = Tag is correctly used = Build root tag is okay = Generally "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" description is not needed, however, I don't object to this. = Dependencies other than libraries' dependencies automatically added by rpmbuild is not necessary = BuildRequires is enough: mockbuild is okay for FC-devel = No redundant BuildRequires is described = Summary and description is okay = Documentation Encodings are fixed (according to my suggestion) = Needed documentation - AUTHORS - COPYING - ChangeLog - README - TODO --- all included (in main package) = Mock build log says that fedora specific compilation flags are correctly passed (checked by grep -v FORTIFY MOCK-krename.log ) = No static libraries nor .la files = There is no libraries duplicate of system libraries = /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpath-worker `rpm -ql krename` does not complain = No conf file = Desktop description is okay desktop-file-varidate does not report any error = desktop-file-install correctly used = Macros correctly used = No mixed use of %{buildroot} <-> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT = %makeinstall not used = Locale files are handled by %find_lang = Timestamps are correctly kept for - xml/html - gettext mo files - png file (checked by `rpm -qilvv --changelog --scripts krename) = Parallel build okay = For scriplets -> According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets = No shared libraries, ldconfig not needed = No services = No GConf = No Texinfo = No Scrollkeeper = mime type is not needed nor described in desktop file (desktop update is not needed, proper) = mimetype xml is not included = files are installed under %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor -> GTK+ icon cache updating is needed --- correctly handled!! = No fonts = No conditional dependencies = Mockbuild is okay, this means that non-root users' rebuild should work = No content which cannot be accepted in FE is not included = Unowned directory - /usr -> filesystem - /usr/bin -> filesystem - /usr/share -> filesystem - /usr/share/applications -> filesystem - /usr/share/apps -> kdelibs - /usr/share/doc -> filesystem - /usr/share/doc/HTML -> kdelibs - /usr/share/doc/HTML/en -> kdelibs - /usr/share/icons -> redhat-artwork - /usr/share/icons/hicolor -> hicolor-icon-theme - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/??x?? -> hicolor-icon-theme - /usr/share/icons/hicolor/??x??/apps -> hicolor-icon-theme = all okay = Owned directory - /usr/share/apps/konqueror - /usr/share/apps/krename - /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/krename - /usr/share/icons/lcolor = all are not owned by other packages needed by this package ( as for /usr/share/apps/konqueror, this is owned by kdebase, however, this package can be used for NON-KDE user so owning this directory is okay and recommended) = This is no web app and /var/www is not used Then from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines = rpmlint for source is silent = rpmlint for binary rpm is silent = rpmlint for installed rpm is silent = Naming is okay (described above) = Consistency for package guideline is checked above = License is okay (described above) = License documentation included (described above) = Actually I don't know the deferrence between American/British/Other English in detail...... = I can read this spec file with ease = Downloading all sources (one) from described URLs succeeded = md5sum values are same = mockbuild is okay for FC-devel i386 = BuildRequires is okay (described above) = locale handling okay (described above) = ldconfig not needed (described above) = relocable description is not used = Directory ownership is okay (described above) = permission is okay - checked by rpmlint and rpm -qilvv krename = %clean section handled properly = macro usage is okay (described above) = code/content issue is no problem (described above) = No large documentation is included in source tarball and -doc subpackage is not needed = -devel subpackage is not needed = .la files/static archives are not included (described above) = desktop file is correctly installed (described above) = directory ownership is handled correctly (described above) Well, other thing I have noticed = mock build log is okay = file `rpm -ql krename` is no problem = rpm -qilvv --changelog --scripts krename is okay = ( for f in `rpm -ql krename` ; do if file $f | grep -q text ; then echo $f ; done ) | xargs less is okay = It seems that this app works and no segv happened for now = ( for f in `rpm -ql krename` ; do if file $f | grep -q image l then echo $f ; done ) | xargs display is okay = w3m /usr/share/doc/HTML/en/krename/index.html is okay APPROVED -- 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