[Bug 220969] Review Request: isomaster - GUI CD image editor

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Dec 29 20:12:34 UTC 2006


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: isomaster - GUI CD image editor


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=220969


mr.ecik at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |163776
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik at gmail.com  2006-12-29 15:12 EST -------
Hi! Nice to see that another Pole wants to put his package in Extras! :-)
However there's a lot to do in your spec file.
 * First of all mock build of your package fails due to a simple mistake. You
put desktop-file-utils as Requires but it should be BuildRequires.
 * You don't have to explicitly set a version of gtk2 in requires. RPM should
build fine without it.
 * Your %files section doesn't look good. Package owns files in
%{_datadir}/%{name}/icons/ but doesn't own the parent one. It means that if you
remove RPM, all files within %{_datadir}/%{name}/icons/ will be deleted but the
dir remains. In order to fix it you ought to simply remove all
%{_datadir}/%{name}/icons/ lines and replace them with a simple
%{_datadir}/%{name}
 * I don't see it as a blocker but in my opinion much better solution would be
if you move a desktop file to another Source instead of creating it in spec.
That should be a lot more legible.

And the last thing: SPEC files are different at the URL you passed here and
inside SRPM. I hope you'll get rid of that issue in next release ;-)

PS. I also added FE-NEW blocker as it were missing.

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list