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: moto4lin - Filemanager and seem editor for Motorola P2k phones https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227256 ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-04 09:05 EST ------- GOOD - package meets naming guidelines - license ( GPL ) OK, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, sha1sum 12dff499f7a29a36e7b7a67d3260d470280485dc moto4lin-0.3.tar.bz - package compiles on FC6/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 separated -doc - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no .la, static, .pc files MUSTFIX - the source rpm should retain the date of the upstream source - the binary rpm should include as %doc the license file (it is included in the tar.bz2 as GPL-2) - %prep does not need to include cleaning the buildroot - the program is a GUI, so acording to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop a moto4lin.desktop file should be included in the rpm. Otherwise a comment with your explanation of not providing one should be included in the spec file Suggestion - It is unusual for a spec to include the comments about the macros. If you definitely need them, feel free to let them in, but otherwise they should be deleted. NEEDINFO - as far as I can tell, the program does start in FC6. Without a compatible phone I cannot say if it actually works. The comment on the main page of the moto4lin wiki states that the 0.3 version does not work on x86_64 and recommends either patching it or using the more recent svn version. Could you please elaborate on this aspect? -- 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