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: kazehakase - Kazehakase browser https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=219327 ------- Additional Comments From peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-02 01:31 EST ------- Sorry to take so long on this one. I've been quite a bit backlogged at work. :( I really appreciate your patience. Soo.... here we go! == Formal Review of kazehakase 0.4.4-1 == GOOD: rpmlint is silent on both the source and binary RPMs. GOOD: The package follows the naming guidelines, and the spec file is named accordingly ("%{name}.spec"). GOOD: BuildRoot is "%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)", following the packaging guidelines. GOOD: No duplicate BuildRequires are included; and all necessary BuildRequires are listed. GOOD: Included documentation (%doc) is OK. GOOD: Package builds and runs against system copies of installed tools and libraries; and does not include its own local copies thereof. GOOD: Package includes an appropriate .desktop file since it is a graphical application; and desktop-file-install is properly used to install it. A BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils is also present. GOOD: Macros are used instead of harcoded file names, and usage of these macros (including $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) is consistent throughout the spec file. GOOD: Locale files are handled correctly, using %find_lang. GOOD: Package is not relocatable. GOOD: Package includes appropriate code and content; and final directory and file ownership is OK. Configuration files are marked appropriately (%config). GOOD: Package does not own any system files/directories or any files/directories that conflict with another package. GOOD: Package license (GPL) is OK; and a copy of it is included in the package as documentation (%doc COPYING). The License field in the spec file properly reflects this. GOOD: Spec file is legible; and written in American English. GOOD: The source tarball matches that of upstream: $ md5sum SOURCES/kazehakase-0.4.4* 049fd40c238e6838bcdbe14c37cc9051 SOURCES/kazehakase-0.4.4-srpm.tar.gz 049fd40c238e6838bcdbe14c37cc9051 SOURCES/kazehakase-0.4.4-upstream.tar.gz GOOD: The package successfully builds in mock into x86 binary RPMs on both FC6 and devel/FC7. GOOD: No duplicates are listed in the %files section; and its %defattr line is good. GOOD: Package has an appropriate %clean section, which contains simply "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" GOOD: When installed, the application runs well with no apparent segfaults or major bugs. GOOD: Files are converted to UTF-8 encoding properly. GOOD: Package uses %{?_smp_mflags} and honors %optflags compiler flags properly. GOOD: Package contains no libtool archives (*.la files) N/A: No static libraries or rPath exclusions are needed. N/A: Package is not a web application. N/A: No ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch tweaking is required. N/A: Package installs no shared libraries into the standard $LIBDIR; thus %post/%postun scriplets of /sbin/ldconfig are not needed. N/A: No large (neither in size nor in quantity) documentation is included, thus no -doc subpackage is needed. N/A: No headers, no pkgconfig files, and no static or unsuffixed shared libraries are included. Thus, no -devel subpackage is needed. N/A: Package contains no %description or Summary translations. N/A: Scriplets are not required for this package. ** FIXME: The only potential issue I see I see with this is the following in the %configure output: ------------------- checking for IceConnectionNumber in -lICE... no checking for SmcSaveYourselfDone in -lSM... no checking X11/SM/SMlib.h usability... no checking X11/SM/SMlib.h presence... no checking for X11/SM/SMlib.h... no ------------------- Perusing through the source (kazahakse-0.4.4/src/kz-app.c), it seems that it can optionally build with XSM (X session manager) support, which is probably a desired feature. :) Adding libSM-devel to the BuildRequires enables this. If you fix this, I'll approve the package for importing. Woo! -- 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