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: gnome-do - quick object search and interaction Alias: gnome-do https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=382371 peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |gnome-do ------- Additional Comments From peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-14 23:00 EST ------- Review for most of the spec file: == GOOD == + Package naming/version is good; and the spec is named accordingly ("%{name}.spec"). + License (GPLv3+) is acceptable for Fedora inclusion. + BuildRoot is OK, and is properly cleaned at the beginning of %install and as the only step in %clean. + Debuginfo package creation is disabled, but this is OK since it's a Mono module. + Spec file is written in American English, and is legible. + PPC64 is ExcludeArch, with bug noted in the spec that blocks the FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 tracker. + Macro usage is consistent ($RPM_*) + Package includes permissible code. + Installed .pc file is in its own -devel subpackage, and that subpackage has a hardcoded runtime dependency on pkgconfig. -devel subpackage also properly has a fully-versioned dependency on the main package. (E.g., "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}") + Package contains no libtool files ("foo.la") + .desktop file is included and properly installed with desktop-file-install (except for one minor issue - see below). == MINOR == # Please don't add the X-Fedora to the installed .desktop file. It's useless cruft. :) == BLOCKERS == (1) Package fails to build in mock (x86_64/devel) due to noted missing BRs and multilib suckage. Once this is fixed to build, I'll finish the rest of the review, as it requires a properly-built resulting binary RPM. == Not Applicable == * Package includes no gettext translations, so %find_lang is not needed. * No native shared libs are installed, so /sbin/ldconfig invocations in %post/%postun are not needed and unversioned ".so" files are not present. * Package is not relocatable. * Package installs no large documentation, so a -doc subpackage is not needed. * No header files or static libraries are included. -- 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