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: gnucash - personal finance management https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222388 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-01-13 16:08 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL/GFDL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 5755b05a3eaebab392fe9ad49073beb2 gnucash-2.0.4.tar.bz2 5755b05a3eaebab392fe9ad49073beb2 gnucash-2.0.4.tar.bz2.1 ffc058efd0283a4b43ca31980c40db49 gnucash-docs-2.0.1.tar.bz2 ffc058efd0283a4b43ca31980c40db49 gnucash-docs-2.0.1.tar.bz2.1 afa10712d00b6a90aef0dc7fbb116ff30ded91cb gnucash-2.0.4.tar.bz2 afa10712d00b6a90aef0dc7fbb116ff30ded91cb gnucash-2.0.4.tar.bz2.1 ce04f51e8eeb8324b7abca6bf84ddb18562cf6b4 gnucash-docs-2.0.1.tar.bz2 ce04f51e8eeb8324b7abca6bf84ddb18562cf6b4 gnucash-docs-2.0.1.tar.bz2.1 See below - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: See below - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Is this package built often from svn snapshots? ie, are the %if's for svn building needed anymore? 2. Is the %defattr(-,root,root,755) needed? Or will %defattr(-,root,root,-) work? 3. Does rpm fail at finding the perl requires? Is the '%define __perl_requires %{nil}' still needed? 4. Doesn't seem to build here in mock/devel. The build.log has at the end: checking for libgsf-1 >= 1.12.2 libgsf-gnome-1 >= 1.12.2... Package libgsf- gnome-1 was not found in the pkg-config search path. Perhaps you should add the directory containing `libgsf-gnome-1.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'libgsf-gnome-1' found configure: error: Library requirements (libgsf-1 >= 1.12.2 libgsf-gnome-1 >= 1.12.2) not met; consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if your libraries are in a nonstandard prefix so pkg-config can find them. error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.55382 (%build) Looks like missing 'Buildrequires: libgsf-gnome-devel' Adding that gets it building on devel here. 5. The "--disable-sql" seems to have been added back in fc4. Is it worth re-enabling now? 6. Should the --with-cairo be commented in or out? 7. Our friend rpmlint says: E: gnucash obsolete-not-provided gnucash-backend-postgres I don't know how long ago the gnucash-backend-postgres was removed, but it might be good to provide gnucash-backend-postgres as long as the obsolete is still there. E: gnucash invalid-soname /usr/lib/libgncqof-backend-qsf.so libgncqof-backend- qsf.so E: gnucash invalid-soname /usr/lib/libgnc-backend-file.so libgnc-backend-file.so Can be ignored. I think rpmlint can't handle things with - in the filename when it's not a major version number. W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/apps_gnucash_warnings.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/apps_gnucash_history.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_dialog_prices.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_window_pages_register.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_dialog_reconcile.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_dialog_hbci.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_dialog_common.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/apps_gnucash_general.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_dialog_business_common.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_dialog_print_checks.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_import_generic_matcher.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_dialog_totd.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_window_pages_account_tree.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_dialog_scheduled_transctions.schemas W: gnucash non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/ apps_gnucash_dialog_commodities.schemas I think as you say that all these can be ignored. E: gnucash non-executable-script /usr/share/xml/gnucash/xsl/vcard- gnccustomer.pl 0644 Might nuke the #!/usr/bin/perl from this script or make it executable? E: gnucash shell-syntax-error-in-%post There seems to be a unattached done in the %post. W: gnucash unversioned-explicit-obsoletes gnucash-backend-postgres typically it's good to add a version thats being obsoleted. E: gnucash hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/debug Is the '%exclude /usr/lib/debug' needed? E: gnucash-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/gnucash-2.0.4/src/ import-export/import-commodity-matcher.c Should be mode 644? 8. .la files should be nuked unless there is a good reason to keep them. 9. It looks like the docs aren't released for each main gnucash release. Perhaps it would make sense to split them into a gnucash-docs package? That would save people 10MB of update when just gnucash was updated. 10. Does %{?_smp_mflags} not work with this package? Unless it breaks something, that should be added to both the main make and the docs make. -- 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