[Bug 947048] Review Request: wmpager - Simple pager docklet for the Window Maker

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

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947048

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is silent (except for bogus grammar-related messages)

work ~/Desktop: rpmlint  wmpager-*
wmpager.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) docklet -> docket, dock let,
dock-let
wmpager.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work space,
work-space, works pace
wmpager.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspaces -> work spaces,
work-spaces, works paces
wmpager.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automagically ->
automatically, auto magically, auto-magically
wmpager.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) docklet -> docket, dock let,
dock-let
wmpager.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspace -> work
space, work-space, works pace
wmpager.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workspaces -> work
spaces, work-spaces, works paces
wmpager.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US automagically ->
automatically, auto magically, auto-magically
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
work ~/Desktop: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (New
BSD, no advertising, 3 clause).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
(dockapps/README), is included in %doc
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application which is intended to be run by user so no *.desktop
file is required.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


APPROVED.

-- 
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=Rk79xgxn97&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]