[Bug 204461] Review Request: kita - 2ch client for KDE

[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:  kita -  2ch client for KDE


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204461





------- Additional Comments From cgoorah at yahoo.com.au  2006-08-29 17:33 EST -------
MUST Items:

- MUST: rpmlint's output is clean
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file,
then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is
included in %doc.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. 
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i386.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.

*******

kdelibs-devel already requires qt-devel, libacl-devel, libart_lgpl-devel,
arts-devel, pcre-devel, zlib-devel

chitlesh(SPECS)[0]$rpm -qR kdelibs-devel
/bin/sh
arts-devel
bzip2-devel
fam-devel
kdelibs = 6:3.5.4-0.1.fc5
libacl-devel
libart_lgpl-devel
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
libidn-devel
libjpeg-devel
libqt-mt.so.3
libstdc++.so.6
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)
libtiff-devel
libxslt-devel
openssl-devel
pcre-devel
qt-devel >= 1:3.3.6
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
zlib-devel


*******

- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it
is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries 
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix 
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section.
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 

SHOULD Items:

 - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING
 - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386.
 - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
 - SHOULD: No subpackages present.

This package lookss good to me.
Clean the BR, then I'll approuve it afterwards

-- 
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.