[Bug 1490054] Review Request: scidavis - Application for Scientific Data Analysis and Visualization

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490054



--- Comment #28 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #27)
> Issues:
> =======
> - Package does not use a name that already exists.
>   Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
>   https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/scidavis
>   See:
>  
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/
> NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
> 
> This is review is considered as an "unorphaning" process.
> 
> - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
>   contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
>   Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in scidavis
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
>   database
> 
> No longer used on Fedora.

Nothing to do here, right?

> GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ are compatible licenses; you can use GPLv3+ as resultant 
> license.

Really??? It always seemed logical, but since I am not proficient in legalese I
didn't question it. Do you want me to update the spec, or should I leave it for
the next build?

> [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners:
>      /usr/share/icons/locolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/locolor/32x32/apps,
>      /usr/share/icons/locolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/mime,
>      /usr/share/mime/packages, /usr/share/icons/locolor,
>      /usr/share/icons/locolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/locolor/22x22,
>      /usr/share/icons/locolor/22x22/apps
> 
> '/usr/share/icons/locolor' looks not owned by any package.
> I think you can permit 'scidavis' owns it, use:
> 
> %dir %{_datadir}/icons/locolor

On my system, I see a bunch of icons under /usr/share/icons/locolor, belonging
to libreoffice, kimagemapeditor, krename and kxsldbg. I don't think scidavis
should take ownership…



> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: scidavis-1.21-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm
>           python2-scidavis-1.21-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm
>           scidavis-debuginfo-1.21-4.fc28.x86_64.rpm
>           scidavis-1.21-4.fc28.src.rpm
> scidavis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scriptability ->
> script ability, script-ability, inscrutability
> scidavis.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility ->
> sensibility, extensible
> python2-scidavis.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> python2-scidavis.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> scidavis-debuginfo.x86_64: E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)

Are these errors because rpmlint hasn't caught up with the system wide
debugging changes, or have I messed up something?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux