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: gnome-desktop-sharp - .NET language binding for mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454134 ------- Additional Comments From dan@xxxxxxxx 2008-07-05 08:13 EST ------- formal review is here, see notes on the end OK source files match upstream: b99729f7a7265fb1cecf09ced31e009e3ccd66bb gnome-desktop-sharp-2.20.1.tar.bz2 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is correct. BAD license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible (LGPLv2+). License text included in package. OK latest version is being packaged. OK BuildRequires are proper. N/A compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in koji (Rawhide/x86_64). OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. BAD final provides and requires look sane. N/A %check is present and all tests pass. OK shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths, correct scriptlets exist OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK correct scriptlets present. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK pkgconfig files are in devel subpackage OK no libtool .la droppings. OK not a GUI app. * are you sure about the LGPLv2+ license tag? I was able to find only LGPLv2 references in the sources * this package should obsolete the standalone gtksourceview2-sharp package * the NEWS file can be removed from %doc as there is no real content -- 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