Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnumeric https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=443355 dev@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From dev@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-21 00:26 EST ------- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/* (koji) [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM: see Comment 1 [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package: 1708da12f206fea1dda5c5341dfdd3eb2d1913dd gnumeric-1.8.2.tar.bz2 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === Issues === Help->Contents doesn't work, mainly due to yelp not been provided somewhere along the lines... This is imo a problem higher up the chain and I'm not going to require you add the dependency... Personally, I'd sooner see the discussion reported at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue92#head- c93cd512fdf8e965869b3db1ff4bc7e152ef26ea restarted and yelp provided somewhere around gnome-libs or something (think of the poor users who want help playing tetris!) ================ *** APPROVED *** ================ -- 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