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: freenx-client - Free client libraries and binaries for the NX protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=441187 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2008-04-07 14:56 EST ------- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 777b3cda7a245e3870d4870a9460cb73 freenx-client-0.9.tar.bz2 777b3cda7a245e3870d4870a9460cb73 freenx-client-0.9.tar.bz2.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install See below - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. See below - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun See below - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig See below - .so files in -devel subpackage. See below - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} See below - .la files are removed. See below - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - 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. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. Fix the description. ;) 2. The License seems to be GPLv2+ here. All the code I can see has the 'or later' in it. Can you confirm and adjust the License tag? Also, you might ping upstream to include a copy of the GPL and ship it once they do? 3. Minor/nitpick: Can this package (and now that I think of it, the server as well) use %{?_smp_mflags}? 4. Might split off those devel files to a devel subpackage? Or if there isn't much point now, perhaps remove them for now? 5. Might consider making a desktop file for the clients? 6. rpmlint says: freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/nxcl/nxclientlib.h freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/nxcl/notQt.h freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/nxcl/nxdata.h freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/nxcl.pc freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/nxcl/nxclientlib_i18n.h freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/nxcl/nxsession.h freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libnxcl.so freenx-client.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/nxcl/nxcl.h freenx-client.i386: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libnxcl.so.1.0.0 freenx-client.i386: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libnxcl.so.1.0.0 All would be fixed by nuking the devel files or shipping them in a devel subpackage. -- 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