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: mfiler3 - Two pane file manager under UNIX console https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452282 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-20 15:23 EST ------- Re: the rpmlint warnings, I also get mfiler3-mdnd.x86_64: W: no-documentation which isn't a problem. I would probably delete the zero-length BUG file in %prep to avoid complicating the %files list, but I don't see it as a particularly significant problem. My Japanese is just good enough to puzzle out most of the homepage, and most of it is gairaigo anyway. One thing I couldn't quite get is the "bug" section mentioning, I think, excessive memory consumption. Maybe that's what should be in the BUG file. I think I'll have to take your word on the license; I don't see any mention of the GPL version anywhere, but there are some non-ASCII comments in the source which don't render in UTF8 for me. I guess it's conceivable that there's something in there, though I don't think it likely. * source files match upstream: 6d22b511a3279764c357b4355ac1c9b21354338b52e8d7eb0c47f5c50783db06 mfiler3-1.0.0.tgz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * 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. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: mfiler3-1.0.0-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm config(mfiler3) = 1.0.0-1.fc10 mfiler3 = 1.0.0-1.fc10 = /bin/bash config(mfiler3) = 1.0.0-1.fc10 libgc.so.1()(64bit) libmigemo.so.1()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libonig.so.2()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) mfiler3-mdnd-1.0.0-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm mfiler3-mdnd = 1.0.0-1.fc10 = /usr/bin/env mfiler3 = 1.0.0-1.fc10 ruby(gtk2) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. It seems to run fine although I didn't try to do much with it. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. 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