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: guitone - A frontend for Monotone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428955 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-21 03:43 EST ------- This is a clean package; the only question I have regards the contents of the "tests" directory in the tarball. Is that a test suite that could be run as part of the rpm build process? If so, you should add a %check section and call it. If not, it would be worth adding a comment to the spec explaining why it's not called. * source files match upstream: 3ab8b0dc78141bc7144e2f8d67254c9bcf89c6ed4a31975dbeefc15701f93c8f guitone-0.7.tgz * 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 included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: guitone = 0.7-1.fc9 = libQtCore.so.4()(64bit) libQtGui.so.4()(64bit) libQtNetwork.so.4()(64bit) libQtXml.so.4()(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(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) monotone ? %check is not present, but there seems to be some sort of test suite in the tarball. I did run this, but without ever having used monotone, there's not much I can do with it since it doesn't do anything unless you have an existing checkout or database. * 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 -doc 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. * a GUI app; desktop file is present and is installed properly. -- 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