[Bug 225902] Merge Review: intltool

[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=225902

Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |limburgher@xxxxxxxxx
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |limburgher@xxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-05 13:41:53 EDT ---
Fresh review:

Good:

- rpmlint checks return:

intltool.spec:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xml-i18n-tools
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing.  This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.

intltool.noarch: W: self-obsoletion xml-i18n-tools obsoletes xml-i18n-tools =
0.11
The package obsoletes itself.  This is known to cause errors in various tools
and should thus be avoided, usually by using appropriately versioned Obsoletes
and/or Provides and avoiding unversioned ones

Fix.

intltool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bonobo -> Bono, bonbon,
Bonn
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

intltool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ui -> ii, u, i
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

intltool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -> PO, pew, op
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

Ignore.

intltool.noarch: E: devel-dependency gettext-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.

Does this really need gettext-devel or just gettext?  Should perhaps the
Requires and BuildRequires for gettext and gettext-devel be reversed?  If this
is correct, that's fine.

Several incorrect FSF address errors, not a huge issue, fix bugs upstream if
you like.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( GPLv2 with exceptions ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file

Otherwise it looks pretty good.  Just the dependency questions.  Let me know if
you'd like me to commit anything.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact 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]