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: qmpdclient - MPD client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226904 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-31 18:35 EST ------- I don't see any problems with the rpmlint warnings. find-debuginfo.sh has decided they are source and need to be in the -debuginfo subpackage, and I certainly wouldn't want to remove them. Any chance you could perhaps flesh out the summary a bit and maybe define "MPD" in the %description? I would suggest something like: Summary: Easy to use MPD client written in Qt4 %description A very advanced and easy to use MPD (Music Player Daemon) client written in Qt4. You will need a running MPD instance running somewhere on your network in order to make use of this software. Other than that, this package looks good. I'll go ahead and approve it and you can provide something more descriptive when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: 4d01940020414cb5c16299dd03f32bc00daa2defc7805348b71ef7ff42d2c5d2 qmpdclient-1.0.7.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X summary is OK. X description is a bit lacking. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has only ignoreable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: qmpdclient = 1.0.7-1.fc7 = /bin/sh hicolor-icon-theme libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * 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 OK (gtk-update-icon-cache). * 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 static libraries. * no libtool .la droppings. * desktop file present: looks OK and is installed properly. -- 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