[Bug 232399] Review Request: gscan2pdf - A GUI for producing a multipage PDF from a scan

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

 



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: gscan2pdf - A GUI for producing a multipage PDF from a scan


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232399


wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From wolfy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2007-03-17 18:00 EST -------
GOOD

- no output from rpmlint, either on source rpm or on generated binary rpm
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream, is latest release, sha1sum
04435a98844ad7ffba30cd1fe5767340617635bd  gscan2pdf-0.9.5.tar.gz
- package compiles on devel (x86_64 and x86)
- no missing BR [1]
- no unnecessary BR
- locales handled properly (uses find_lang)
- not relocatable
- owns all files/directories that it creates, does not take ownership of foreign
files/directories
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime 
- program is a GUI, it does provide a .desktop, but it is not properly installed
- no .la/static/.pc files files 

{1] there is a warning in the build log about a missing Gtk2-1.0.8, but it
appears even if I have added gtk2-devel (which is version 2.10.11)as a BR, so I
guess the warning might be bogus

SHOULD
- package compiles/builds OK in mock/devel/x86 and x86_64

MUSTFIX: .desktop is not properly installed; you could use
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-d559ee7363418a5840ce63090c608c991cd39ce6
as a guide for the required scriptlets

My only FC6 machine is currently down, I will test Monday if the program runs OK
and finalize the review.

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]