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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server Alias: poker2d https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612 ------- Additional Comments From wart@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-19 18:33 EST ------- GOOD ==== * Source matches upstream: db5dd531d4d7113c1777ba66a41fe803 poker-network-1.0.35.tar.gz * GPL license ok, license file included * rpmlint output clean * Spec file legible and in Am. English * Compiles and builds on FC6-i386, FC6-x86_64, devel-i386, devel-x86_64 * Language files properly handled with %find_lang * No shared libraries in the default linker path * $RPM_BUILD_ROOT cleaned where appropriate * Package owns all directories that it creates * No duplicate %files * No need for -devel subpackage * No need for separate -doc subpackage * Not relocatable * .desktop file installed correctly * No pkgconfig files MUSTFIX ======= * .la droppings. If these are needed, then document the reason why in the spec file. /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_pokerinterface.la /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_pokerinterface2_4.la * The documentation file NIHPHOBIA is cute, but unnecessary. COMMENTS ======== * poker2d currently shares the same source tarball as poker-network. But as the comment mentions in the spec file, these will eventually be split upstream into two separate tarballs. This is acceptable. * poker2d-common contains a single file. Is it really necessary to split this into a separate subpackage? * Runs fine on FC6, but I've had odd crashes on FC7 with python 2.5. Upstream may want to consider more testing with python 2.5. -- 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