Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: system-config-date https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226455 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-03-20 00:57 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. See below - Sources match upstream md5sum: OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. See below - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. See below - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version 4 outstanding bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: 1. Some of the translation files say: po/lt.po:# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package. Would be nice to say "system-config-date" there instead of PACKAGE? 2. Since redhat/fedora is upstream for this package, can you add a note as suggested in: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-413e1c297803cfa9de0cc4c56f3ac384bff5dc9e 3. Please use one of the preferred buildroots, such as: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 4. The desktop file is missing a valid Main Category, see: http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html Suggest: System or Settings be added. Without this, this tool shows up under a "Other" menu in Xfce. 5. Why are you manually setting the mode of the man pages and pam files? Are they not installing with the correct mode? 6. Should add a rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to the top of the %install section. 7. Are the Obsoletes still needed? Obsoletes: timetool Obsoletes: dateconfig Obsoletes: timeconfig Obsoletes: redhat-config-date 8. Is the "Conflicts: firstboot <= 1.3.26" needed? If it still is, couldn't it be converted to a: "Requires: firstboot => 1.3.26" instead? 9. The "Requires: python2" should probibly just be removed? The pygtk2-libglade pulls in python. 10. rpmlint says: a) W: system-config-date incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8.90 1.8.90-1.fc7 This is probibly due to missing the version in many of the changelog entries. b) E: system-config-date tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: system-config-date tag-not-utf8 %changelog E: system-config-date non-utf8-spec-file system-config-date.spec Suggest: The spec file doesn't seem to be UTF8. Perhaps run iconv on the spec and check it in again to fix? c) E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided timetool E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided dateconfig E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided timeconfig E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-date W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes timetool W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes dateconfig W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes timeconfig W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-config-date See point 7 d) E: system-config-date file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/system-config-date/ntp.template Suggest: You can't have config marked files in datadir. Either don't mark it as config, or move it to somewhere else? e) E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/timezone_gui.py E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/dateBackend.py E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/timezoneBackend.py E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/scdMainWindow.py E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/zonetab.py E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/Clock.py E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/timezone_map_gui.py E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/system-config-date.glade E: system-config-date script-without-shebang /usr/share/system-config-date/date_gui.py Suggest: All of these should be mode 644 since they are just imported by the main program? No need for them to be executable. f) E: system-config-date no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install See point 6. 11. 4 outstanding bugs. None of them look to be packaging related, but you might check them over and see if any can be closed while doing the rest of the cleanup for this 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