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: etherape - Graphical network monitor for Unix https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225604 wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-10 17:37 EST ------- Almost everything seems fine now. except with the desktop file: according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755 "If upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as <vendor_id>." Therefore you should use desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora". Good - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license is GPL, text in %doc, matches source, includes COPYING from the sources - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream, is last available version, sha1sum 72e5e570530a89ea962a17e55723318010e9a8e5 etherape-0.9.7.tar.gz - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - MINOR (not a blocker): unnecessary BR libglade2-devel (brought in by libgnomeui-devel) - handles locales properly - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - docs are small - nothing in %doc affects runtime - scriptlets respect packaging recommendations - no static content, pkgconfig(.pc) files, or libtool archives All problems mentioned in comments #3 and #4 are fixed. The package is APPROVED but please fix the desktop-file install command before importing. You could also remove libglade2-devel from BR, unless you have an important reason to keep it mentioned. -- 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