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: seaview - Graphical multiple sequence alignment editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239282 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-28 12:03 EST ------- OK, the only issue I see is that we don't use the X-Fedora category these days, so you shouldn't have the "--add-category" bit. But that's really minor; you can fix it when you check in. APPROVED Review: * source files match upstream: ce08adfd4f177082c6ff9eb049d4405a9db0ed9383c2f41705b1c8a719036880 seaview.tar * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * 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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: seaview = 0-0.1.20070615.fc8 = libX11.so.6()(64bit) libfltk.so.1.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) * %check is not present (or at least it's empty); 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. * no scriptlets present. * 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 files. X desktop file is present and looks OK but uses X-Fedora category. -- 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