Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458588 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-16 16:36:12 EDT --- I find that I can't fetch the upstream source from the Source0 URL in the spec; http://users.telenet.be/on4qz/qsstv/download/qsstv-5.3c.tar.gz seems to be the proper location. The "snapshots" directory holds version 6.0a. That, of course, begs the question of whether you would prefer to package 6.0a instead. I can go ahead and review this version, however. The only other issue I see is that there is no desktop file. As this is a GUI application, Fedora requires that a desktop file be provided by the package. * source files match upstream (using corrected URL): 26094e95eb7e2a6728b8d3bde7aee91cb1ce2f6167dd58a8e47c778f405099ad qsstv-5.3c.tar.gz * 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. * 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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: qsstv = 5.3c-1.fc10 qsstv(x86-64) = 5.3c-1.fc10 = libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libqt-mt.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I honestly haven't a clue as to how I could test this, but I ran the program and it opened windows and suck without crashing. * 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. X A GUI application with no desktop file -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review