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: Plymouth - Graphical Boot Animation and Logger https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449149 ------- Additional Comments From notting@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-30 15:36 EST ------- MUST items: - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK - Spec file matches base package name. - OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK - License - GPLv2+ - License field in spec matches - *** Spec says GPLv2. Code says GPLv2+. - License file included in package - OK - Spec in American English - OK - Spec is legible. - OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: - *** Can't find an upstream tarball. Also, URL tag redirects to nowhere. - Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A - BuildRequires correct - OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang - N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK - Package has correct buildroot - OK %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. - OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - *** It installs shared libraries but doesn't call ldconfig. - .so files in -devel subpackage. - *** Ships %{_libdir}/libply.so - probably should be removed - .la files are removed. - OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK (tested x86_64) - 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. - OK - No rpmlint output. - *** plymouth-plugin-fade-in.x86_64: W: no-documentation plymouth-plugin-spinfinity.x86_64: W: no-documentation Ignorable. plymouth.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib64/libply.so.1.0.0 plymouth.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib64/libply.so.1.0.0 plymouth.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libply.so See above notes. - final provides and requires are sane: - *** What's the Requires: on mkinitrd for? (I understand logically that it's for use in the initrd, but I don't see that it calls anything from it, for example.) SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. - OK (tested x86_64) - Should build on all supported archs - don't see why it wouldn't - Should function as described. - Not tested - Should have sane scriptlets. - *** See above re: ldconfig - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. - OK - Should have dist tag - OK Assorted Other Issues: - Conflicts: rhgb should possibly also have Obsoletes and Provides associated with it - You don't ship a development package. If you expect other packages to build their own plugins, you may want to - What happens if you have plymouth but no plugins installed and try to use it? Should it require a plugin? - --with-background-color=<hex> is ugly. Can't that be specified in the plugin package as part of the theming? -- 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