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: Conmux - Console Multiplexor, abstracts how to connect via backend drivers. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229910 jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-15 10:08 EST ------- > gee, wonder what spec file I was looking at. ;-) I have absolutely no idea. :D Here's the results of a full pass over the spec and resulting packages: * source files match upstream: n/a, its an svn checkout * package meets naming and versioning guidelines * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently - only consistency issue I see is 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' in one place, but 'rm -rf "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"' in another, which is inconsequential, but you get extra style points if they're made to match. :) * dist tag is present * build root is acceptable %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * license field matches the actual license: GPL * license is open source-compatible: GPL License text included in package. * latest version is being packaged: no release version yet, acceptable use of svn checkout * BuildRequires are proper * compiler flags are appropriate: n/a, its perl noarch stuff * %clean is present * package builds in mock (F7/x86_64) * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete: n/a, its noarch * rpmlint is silent: - only a W: for conmux-client containing no docs. You *could* add the main README to the conmux-client sub-package if desired (could be useful in the case where a system only has the client), but its not a requirement. * final provides and requires are sane: conmux provides: ---------------- config(conmux) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6 conmux = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6 conmux requires: ---------------- config(conmux) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6 conmux-client = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6 logrotate perl perl(Conmux) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::Multiplex) perl(IO::Socket) perl(IPC::Open3) perl(Net::Domain) perl(Symbol) perl(URI::Escape) perl(base) perl(lib) perl(strict) conmux-client provides: ----------------------- config(conmux-client) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6 conmux-common = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6 perl(Conmux) perl(Conmux::Registry) conmux-client = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6 conmux-client requires: ----------------------- /usr/bin/perl config(conmux-client) = 0.0-5.493svn.fc6 perl(Conmux) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(IO::Socket) perl(POSIX) perl(URI::Escape) Looks sane enough to me. * %check is present and all tests pass: n/a * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths * owns the directories it creates * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't * no duplicates in %files * file permissions are appropriate * scriptlets are appropriate * code, not content * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers * no pkgconfig files * no libtool .la droppings * not a GUI app Only the two minor (non-blocking) issues I raised above, so this package is APPROVED, and I'll sponsor you. Next up, you need to create an account in the Fedora Account System and jump through a few hoops to get to the point where you can check the package in to be built. Basically, continue from here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors#head-a89c07b5b8abe7748b6b39f0f89768d595234907 -- 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