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: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 rhbugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(michel.sylvan@gmai | |l.com) ------- Additional Comments From rhbugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-04 03:47 EST ------- Review Guidelines MUST items: OK: rpmlint produces no output OK: naming guidelines OK: %{name}.spec ??: Packaging Guidelines FAIL: Licensing Guidelines All the source files seem to be GPLv2+. Help->About dialog is GPLv2+. But COPYING is GPLv3 OK: License field match (GPLv2+) OK: %doc COPYING OK: spec file in en_US OK: legible spec file OK: Sources match upstream OK: Compiles and builds on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=594520 N/A: Builds on all arches OK: All build deps listed OK: Uses %find_lang N/A: no shared libs N/A: not relocatable OK: owns all created dirs OK: no duplicate files in %files OK: proper file permissions OK: %clean with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK: consistent use of macros OK: packagecontains code OK: Those two HTML manuals are not necessarily "large docs" for a -doc pkg. Oh, and they are needed as online help at runtime. OK: %doc files must not affect runtime... Ah, THAT is why the en and de HTML manuals are not %doc. N/A: No header files N/A: no static libs N/A: no foo.pc file N/A: no libfoo.so.1.1 N/A: devel package N/A: no .la files OK: desktop file OK, but German translations to go with the German manual would be nice. OK: Does not own other apps' files or dirs OK: %install starts with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK: All filenames are valid ASCII and thus UTF-8 Review Guidelines SHOULD items: FAIL: No COPYING for GPLv2 ??: Are Summary(de) and %description(de) available? OK: Builds in local mock OK: Builds in Fedora koji on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64 OK: Appears to function as described. N/A: No scriptlets N/A: no subpackages N/A: no foo.pc N/A: no file deps Packaging Guidelines: ??: Is there a reason not to use the standard compiler flags? Maybe add CXXFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" to the "make" line? FAIL: Creates both /usr/share/doc/%{name} and /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} Adding "--docdir=%{_docdir}" to "%configure" might help. - Wasn't there a way to mark the language of the "de" HTML manual? Not that any of the policy requires that... General remarks which do not affect the outcome of the review: - I'd recommend to add a "-b .slur" to "%patch1 -p1" - There are a number of compiler warnings which scream for a fix: voice.cpp:2071: warning: suggest parentheses around && within || chordorrest.cpp:2142: warning: format '%x' expects type 'unsigned int', but argument 2 has type 'NedChordOrRest*' chordorrest.cpp:2284: warning: comparisons like X<=Y<=Z do not have their mathematical meaning NEEDSWORK And on we go to the next iteration. -- 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