[Bug 919469] Review request: mate-applet-softupd - MATE Software Update Applet

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919469

--- Comment #20 from Wolfgang Ulbrich <chat-to-me@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Wolfgang, you should fill the empty checkbox in fedora-review, not paste the
> output without checking.
Michael, i did check the package for the other points but i forget to fil out
them in the review text, respectively i didn't know that i have to fil out the
empty checkbox.
Thanks for your hint, i will do this in next reviews. 
> 
> Anyway, I have a few questions :
> 
> - why does it requires both yumex and packagekit ? To me, that's redundant,
> since the configure will use the first one that will be seen, so forcing one
> or the other kinda defeat the point. And it will fallback on yum in all case
> it seems.
In my opinion using packagekit as backend is the best solution.
I provide this package with yum-updatesd as backend for a half a year in my
repo, which works well too. But the user have to enabled the daemon with
systemd.
Enable the daemon in the rpm isn't allowed according Package Guidelines as far
as i know.
> 
> 
> - the patches should be commented in the spec 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
>
@ Patrick
simply add comment to the patch, ie. adding french translation which is send to
upstream. Or something else. 
> 
> - I am not sure also that the directory ownership is clean, but that's
> pretty hard to see as mate is already installing lots of stuff without clear
> package ownership, and I am still looking on how to fill useful bug report
> for now based on my automated check :/
For me this looks OK.
For example %{_datadir}/mate-panel/applets shouldn't definitely owned by
mate-panel, because mate-panel comes with the main applets.
For your information, i steped back to fedora mate team, checking directories
ownership is on my list. If you have a tool for this, this would be helpful.

@ Patrick
Why you don't want to build for f17?
The package works well on fc17 since half a year and there are mate user who
use f17. ;)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WdLOurKd4n&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
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]