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: online-desktop - Desktop built around web sites and online services https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241834 ------- Additional Comments From mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-31 23:05 EST ------- Doing the checklist: package builds fine in mock rpmlint has no complaints about any of the packages package name: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: - need to update the icon cache in %post and %postun for each subpackage that installs an icon, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets - need to install desktop files with desktop-file-install, which will expose that they contain invalid categories, like Application; also categories like X-RedHat-... are not useful anymore and should be removed - I believe the "Online Desktop" menu item should go into Preferences > Look and Feel, next to "Desktop Effects" - The guidelines generally recommend that subpackages should require their mother package. Not sure if that is really necessary here; another idea I had is that you could maybe reduce the overhead of all those subpackages by having a single online-desktop-applications subpackage. To cite the README: "This is all in one big tarball since it would just be annoying to have a little tiny tarball for every web app" - since the yahoo and picasa icons are not used yet, it might be better to %exclude them. license: ok license field: ok license file: ok spec file language: American English spec file legibility: excellent src url: typo, "source" should be "sources" source tarball: ok buildability: ok complete BRs: ok locales: n/a, no translations --> not a review issue, but we need to tackle that for F8 shared libs: n/a relocatable: n/a directory ownership: packages that install icons must require hicolor-icon-theme duplicate files: ok file permissions: ok %clean section: ok macro use: mixture of %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - please pick one content: ok large docs: n/a headers: n/a static libs: n/a .pc files: n/a shared libs again: still ok subpackage requires base: mentioned above. any reason not to do this ? .desktop files: need to be installed and made valid, see above file ownership: ok %install target: ok filenames utf8: ok -- 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