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=722709 Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-06 02:54:54 EDT --- OK - MUST: rpmlint must be run on source and binaries $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-i386/result/*.rpm mbrowse.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US snmp -> snip, snap, sump mbrowse.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US snmp -> snip, snap, sump 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint mbrowse.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. False positives on spelling. No problems here. OK - MUST: named according to the Package Naming Guidelines OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 9857a88d2e6246384587350a647e605d OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on F15. OK - MUST: no ExcludeArch. OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: calls ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - MUST: does not bundle copies of system libraries. N/A - MUST: not designed to be relocatable OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: permissions on files are set properly OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. OK - SHOULD: Scriptlets are sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: no file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin Other items: OK - latest stable version OK - SourceURL valid It would be nice if there were a desktop icon, but upstream doesn't ship one, so we don't have anything to go on. Even the icon elements in the GUI are hardcoded in C (ugh :-) I've tested this on F15, against an EL6 host running snmpd, and it works fine. Issues: The Categories field in mbrowse.desktop should be "Network" instead of "System". My opinion on the man page: Since this is a GUI app, I don't think it's *really* necessary, and my preference is to just follow upstream here. Maybe the Debian folks never got it upstreamed in the first place? If that's the case, would you mind filing this with upstream? Regardless, it's a SHOULD, not a MUST, so it's up to you as the packager whether to include it in your package or not. APPROVED -- 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