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: bootconf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188445 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-07 21:28 EST ------- OK, I found some time to finish this up. Things look mostly good; there are a couple of really minor issues but at the end of my checklist I found one problematic issue. All of the things I found are below: I don't know what's up with the specfile permissions; it's probably a bug in either rpmbuild or rpmlint (since it probably should only complain about weird permissions like 200 or security problems like mode 666). You don't use the dist tag. I assume you don't want to use it and know how to juggle different specs between Fedora branches to preserve the upgrade path. The %description for the -gui package could use a period, I guess. Perhaps consider passing -p to install (both in the spec and in your Makefile) to preserve timestamps. And, the lone significant issue: The desktop file needs to be installed properly with desktop-file-install; see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop for more info. When you do that, things should go OK but you will notice a warning: bootconf.desktop: warning: value "Application;System;" for key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application" I don't think that warning is particularly problematic. Sorry for not noticing this earlier. * source files match upstream: 8bda663ecc7aa661200a0b230302b0bc8ca9ce8c20128e9c8fef2775214d9b58 bootconf-1.2.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK (-gui package could use a period). * 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. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: bootconf-1.2-2.noarch.rpm bootconf = 1.2-2 = /usr/bin/python bootconf-gui-1.2-2.noarch.rpm bootconf-gui = 1.2-2 = /bin/sh bootconf = 0:1.2-2 pygtk2 usermode * %check is not present; not possible to test this automatically. I installed and ran it and it seemed to work OK. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (update-desktop-database). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. X desktop file not installed properly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review