[Bug 211729] Review Request: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client

[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: museek+ - Soulseek network filesharing client


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211729





------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net  2006-12-12 08:39 EST -------
 1. package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
 2. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
 3. dist tag is present.
 4. build root is correct.
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 5. license field matches the actual license.
 6. license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
 7. source files match upstream:
    5d871e40dc93c04e60688a06e0e143e8  museek+-0.1.12.tar.bz2
 8. latest version is being packaged.
 9. BuildRequires are proper.
10. package builds in mock (fc6 i386).
11. rpmlint is NOT silent.
W: museek+ strange-permission museek-launcher 0775
W: museek+ macro-in-%changelog _datadir
12. final provides and requires are sane:
museek+-0.1.12-2.fc6.i386.rpm:
_mucipherc.so  
museek+ = 0.1.12-2.fc6
=
/bin/sh  
/usr/bin/env  
/usr/bin/python  
libX11.so.6  
libc.so.6  
libfam.so.0  
libgcc_s.so.1  
libglib-2.0.so.0  
libglibmm-2.4.so.1  
libgobject-2.0.so.0  
libm.so.6  
libnsl.so.1  
libogg.so.0  
libpthread.so.0  
libqt-mt.so.3  
libsigc-2.0.so.0  
libstdc++.so.6  
libvorbis.so.0  
libvorbisfile.so.3  
libxml++-2.6.so.2  
libxml2.so.2  
libz.so.1  
python(abi) = 2.4

museek+-0.1.12-2.fc6.src.rpm:
(none)
=
desktop-file-utils  
python-devel  
libxml++-devel  
qt-devel  
gamin-devel  
swig  
libvorbis-devel  
PyXML  
pygtk2-devel  
scons  
13. no shared libraries are present.
14. package is not relocatable.
15. owns the directories it creates.
16. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
17. no duplicates in %files.
18. file permissions are appropriate (?) -> see 11.
19. %clean is present.
20. %check is not present and no testsuite present
21. no scriptlets present.
22. code, not content.
23. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
24. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
25. no headers.
26. no pkgconfig files.
27. no libtool .la droppings.
28. not a GUI app.
29. not a web app.

Please fix 11.


-- 
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.