Looking for feedback on un-orphaning gourmet

[Todd Zullinger]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Good Alaskan Evening!

Do you have proof for this bold and suspicious claim?

> I don't technically need a review for this, but I'd love an informal
> review from someone before i push this into Extras cvs..

I'd be happy to help there since I couldn't do an official review for
you anyway (yet).

> If you want to give me some feedback please take a look at the srpm,
> spec and fc6 noarch package  for version 0.12.2 located at:
> 
> http://jspaleta.thecodergeek.com/Fedora%20SRPMS/gourmet/

I poked through the spec file and here are some things I think could
be changed to bring the spec up to date with respect to the current
recommended practices (meaning minor nits are all I could find to nag
you about :).

> Requires: python-abi ...

There's no need to require python-abi any more according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python .

> Requires: pygtk2 > 2.3

The version of pygtk2 available for FC5 is 2.8, is there a need to
have the requires versioned still?  (If you're looking to use this
spec on RHEL that might be a good reason, though I don't know what
versions of RHEL ship with what versions of PyGTK.)

> Summary:        PyGTK Recipe Manager

Is it necessary to have PyGTK in there?  Does an average user care
what libraries the app was built for/with?  I don't know, I'm
genuinely curious about this.  If it were me I'd use either Recipe
Manager or Recipe Manager for Gnome.  The krecipes package doesn't
mention KDE or QT in it's summary or description (though the ever
present and highly original k in the name sort of gives that away. ;)

And a personal preference, indent the continued lines in the python
install and desktop file install areas.

The package passes all of the relevant MUST items in the review
guidelines.  It built cleanly in mock and installed for FC6.  I even
added a recipe for "Alaskan Santa Mouse Fudge."  :)

> I haven't decided what to do about the desktop file. Can anyone give
> me a compelling reason to move it out of "Other" and into which
> category to put it?

Well, is "Other sucks <insert gross animal parts here> as a menu
category" compelling?

When I installed Gourmet a while back I found it odd and annoying that
it hid itself there.  Accessories made more sense to me and I moved it
there on my system.  The f.d.o. menu spec[1] defines the Utility
(Accessories) keyword as a "small utility application" which I think
Gourmet can easily be called.  While Accessories isn't perfect, it
beats Other, especially when there is only one item in Other.

Another possibility is to put it in Office.  The package group is
Applications/Productivity, and depending on how loosely one defines
their office, it could potentially fit in that category.  I think
that's much less preferable to Accessories though.

[1] http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
======================================================================
I don't mind arguing with myself. It's when I lose that it bothers me.
    -- Richard Powers

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061213/00073c1b/attachment.sig>