[Bug 305491] Review Request: gtk-bluecurve-engine - GTK+ bluecurve engine

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

 



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: gtk-bluecurve-engine - GTK+ bluecurve engine


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=305491





------- Additional Comments From notting@xxxxxxxxxx  2007-09-25 13:37 EST -------
MUST ITEMS
 - 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 - OK
 - License field in spec matches - ***

Should probably be 'LGPLv2+'. Source could stand a few more license blurbs,
but... eh.

 - License file included in package - OK
 - Spec in American English - OK
 - Spec is legible. - OK
 - Sources match upstream md5sum: - ***

No upstream found. Not a blocker, but is nice to have.

 - Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A
 - BuildRequires correct - OK
 - Spec handles locales/find_lang - OK
 - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A
 - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK
 - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK
 - Package has correct buildroot - OK
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 - Package is code or permissible content. - OK
 - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A
 - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK

 - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - N/A
 - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - N/A
 - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - N/A
 - .so files in -devel subpackage. - N/A
 - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - N/A
 - .la files are removed. - OK
 
 - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested x86_64, i386)
 - 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. - OK
 - No rpmlint output. - ***

gtk-bluecurve-engine-1.0.0-1.fc8.src.rpm gtk-bluecurve-engine.src: W:
invalid-license LGPL

Already covered.


gtk-bluecurve-engine.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/gtk-bluecurve-engine-1.0.0/NEWS
gtk-bluecurve-engine.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/gtk-bluecurve-engine-1.0.0/ChangeLog
gtk-bluecurve-engine.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/gtk-bluecurve-engine-1.0.0/README
gtk-bluecurve-engine.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL

Could remove the zero-length files if you want.

 - final provides and requires are sane: - ***

'Requires: gtk2' seems superfluous

SHOULD Items:

 - Should build in mock. - can't test, mock is broken. *Sigh*
 - Should build on all supported archs - tested i386, x86_64
 - Should function as described. - ***

Should the gtkrc bits live in this package too?

 - Should have sane scriptlets. - N/A
 - Should have dist tag - OK
 - Should package latest version - couldn't tell


Fixing the license tag is the big thing. Is this going to have an upstream repo
at some point?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]