[Bug 767082] Review Request: wxpropgrid - A property sheet control for wxWidgets

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=767082

Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-01-27 15:33:30 EST ---
LEGEND:
+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
N: not applicable

MUST:
[=] rpmlint output:
wxpropgrid.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) wxWidgets -> widgets
wxpropgrid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxPropertyGrid ->
expropriated
wxpropgrid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wxWidgets -> widgets
wxpropgrid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US flagsets -> flag
sets, flag-sets, flatlets
wxpropgrid.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libwxcode_gtk2u_propgrid-2.8.so.0.0.0 linux-vdso.so.1
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Those are all innocuous.
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] spec file base name matches package name
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[+] license field matches the actual license
[N] license file is included in %doc: upstream does not ship it.
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: md5sum is f44b5cd6fd60718bacfabbf7994f1e93 for both
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64)
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[+] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[+] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[+] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[+] .so in -devel
[+] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[+] query upstream for license text: has been done, as noted in the spec file.
[N] description and summary contain available translations
[+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386
[+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64
[+] package functions as described: light testing only
[+] sane scriptlets
[+] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

Everything looks great.  This package is 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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]