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: lxpanel - A lightweight X11 desktop panel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219930 fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-06 12:41 EST ------- REVIEW for 80f9ae6864029fd3b0635e71f486c538 lxpanel-0.2.4-3.src.rpm OK - rpmlint -i lxpanel-0.2.4-3.src.rpm W: lxpanel non-coherent-filename lxpanel-0.2.4-3.src.rpm The file which contains the package should be named <NAME>-<VERSION>-<RELEASE>.<ARCH>.rpm. This is odd, I don't see no error here. Something ether is wrong with rpmlint or with your build environment. I don't see this error when I rebuild the srpm locally or in mock, so I choose to ignore it in this review, but can you send me your .rpmmarcos file so we can investigate this further? Does the error go away, when you rebuild the package once again locally? OK - package and spec named according to the package naming guidelines OK - package meets packaging guidelines OK - license is open-source compatible, but COPYING looks dual licensed for me. First part is a BSD like license, second GPLv2. OK - Since GPL is more restrictive than BSD the whole package becomes GPL. So the license field in the spec is ok. OK - COPYING included in source and correctly installed in %doc OK - spec is in American English OK - spec is legible MINOR NOTE - line warps in long fields like %description are usually done after 79 characters. OK - source in srpm matches upstream by md5 37d0e9f2993fc63d9e7e1684552e10b4 OK - package compiles and build into binaries on core 6 i386 OK - no known ExcludeArchs OK - BuildRequires sane OK - locales handled correctly OK - no shared libs to worry about OK - package is not relocatable OK - package owns all directories it creates MINOR NOTE - Instead of %dir %{_datadir}/lxpanel/ %{_datadir}/lxpanel/* %dir %{_libdir}/lxpanel/ %{_libdir}/lxpanel/* you could simply use %{_datadir}/lxpanel/ %{_libdir}/lxpanel/ since you include everything in these directories anyway. The slashes at the end of the line is only for humans to indicate its a dir. OK - no duplicates in %files OK - file permissions and %defattr correct OK - valid clean section OK - macro usage consistent OK - code, not content OK - no large docs OK - docs don't affect runtime OK - no header files, static libs or *.pc files OK - no libtool archives OK - IMO no desktop file is needed since it's panel and not what I call a typical program/standalone application. OK - package doesn't own directories already owned by other files OK - package builds in mock (devel) OK - lxpanel works fine, but lxpanelctl is buggy. I can't add more starter because the "Select Application"-Dialog doesn't list the files in /usr/share/applications. Also hitting return in the location bar doesn't work. Looking at src/plugins/launchbar.c I think this is a known issue (see the FIXME in line 490) and isn't really meant to work atm. So from a reviewers point of view everything looks fine except rpmlint. If the rpmlint error on the srpm can be fixed with a simple rebuild build you can consider this package to be 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