[Bug 198758] Review Request: gnome-phone-manager

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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-phone-manager


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198758





------- Additional Comments From cweyl at alumni.drew.edu  2006-08-01 02:04 EST -------

There is at least one instance where you use 'rm', and then '%{__rm}'.  The
guidelines require that you use one or the other form consistently. ("MUST")

Also, the package fails to build under mock:
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libplds4.so, needed by
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libplc4.so, needed by
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libnspr4.so, needed by
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/../../../../lib64/libedataserver-1.2.so,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libssl3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0, not
found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libsmime3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0,
not found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/bin/ld: warning: libnss3.so, needed by /usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0, not
found (try using -rpath or -rpath-link)
/usr/lib64/libcamel-1.2.so.0: undefined reference to
`NSS_InitReadWrite at NSS_3.2'

(Full log attached.)  I suspect this is due to nspr & nss not being
buildrequires'ed, from the names of the libraries being referenced.

Additionally, are the scriptlets necessary?  The .desktop file does not have a
MimeType entry (see wiki: ScriptletSnippets).  In any case, desktop-file-utils
should not be required for the scriptlets and the scriptlets should be
tolerant of the desktop-file-utils not being installed.

After installing, I find I have two entries for the app in my menus.

X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (release tag).
X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
+ Package URL is browsable.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license field matches the actual license.
+ license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
+ source files match upstream:
951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9  gnome-phone-manager-0.7.tar.bz2
951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9  gnome-phone-manager-0.7.tar.bz2.srpm
+ latest version is being packaged.
X BuildRequires are proper.
X package builds in mock (devel/x86_64).
+ rpmlint is silent.
X final provides and requires are sane:
== provides
gnome-phone-manager = 0.7-2.fc5
== requires
 /bin/sh
X desktop-file-utils
 libICE.so.6()(64bit)
 libORBit-2.so.0()(64bit)
 libSM.so.6()(64bit)
 libX11.so.6()(64bit)
 libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit)
 libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libbluetooth.so.1()(64bit)
 libbonobo-2.so.0()(64bit)
 libbonobo-activation.so.4()(64bit)
 libbonoboui-2.so.0()(64bit)
 libbtctl.so.2()(64bit)
 libc.so.6()(64bit)
 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
 libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
 libdl.so.2()(64bit)
 libebook-1.2.so.5()(64bit)
 libedataserver-1.2.so.7()(64bit)
 libgconf-2.so.4()(64bit)
 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgnokii.so.2()(64bit)
 libgnome-2.so.0()(64bit)
 libgnome-keyring.so.0()(64bit)
 libgnomebt.so.0()(64bit)
 libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit)
 libgnomeui-2.so.0()(64bit)
 libgnomevfs-2.so.0()(64bit)
 libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgthread-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libm.so.6()(64bit)
 libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libpopt.so.0()(64bit)
 libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
 libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
 libz.so.1()(64bit)
+ no shared libraries are present.
+ package is not relocatable.
+ owns the directories it creates.
+ doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ %clean is present.
X %check is not present, but there are no tests
X non-sane scriptlets present.
+ code, not content.
+ documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
+ %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
+ no headers.
+ no pkgconfig files.
+ no libtool .la droppings.
X desktop file installs correctly.
+ not a web app.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.