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: xwnc - Mix of Xvnc and XDarwin with improved protocol Alias: xwnc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221924 wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-09 04:11 EST ------- - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines, including a comment specifying the fact that parallel make is broken - license ( GPL v2) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source is the last available version and matches upstream, f6df982eaebd4bf7f26661c126a1747a9cb0ecb1 xwnc-0.3.3.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - MINOR: duplicate BR autoconf (by automake), automake (by libtool) - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories/files that it creates, does not own foreign files/dirs - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - is an X server, so no need for .desktop file - no .la, no scriptlets, nothing related to devel (static, header files) - rpmlint is silent on both src.rpm and generated binary rpm - does not segfault on start :) I suggest the following - modify %{_bindir}/* into %{_bindir}/Xwnc so that you have better control and do not pull in unneeded stuff in case upstream changes something - add NEWS to %doc, it seems to contain more useful info then the included README - fix BR if you feel like it (according to packaging rules, duplicate BR are acceptable) 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