[Bug 189322] Review Request: rosegarden4

[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: rosegarden4


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322





------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com  2006-07-12 22:12 EST -------
I don't have the "fedorabugs" membership yet, so this I can't approve yet, but
here's my formal review anyways...

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* 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:
md5sum is e7fb7ebcb21ac6841ac5cfd6683f5fb2
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock ( ).
* rpmlint is silent apart from empty file complaints which we've discussed in
bugzilla.  Those will be fixed upstream.
* final provides and requires are sane:
    rosegarden4-1.2.3-2.x86_64.rpm
    rosegarden4 = 1.2.3-2
=
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/perl
    desktop-file-utils
    libDCOP.so.4()(64bit)
    libX11.so.6()(64bit)
    libXft.so.2()(64bit)
    libXrender.so.1()(64bit)
    libasound.so.2()(64bit)
    libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit)
    libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
    libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
    libjack.so.0()(64bit)
    libkdecore.so.4()(64bit)
    libkdeprint.so.4()(64bit)
    libkdeui.so.4()(64bit)
    libkio.so.4()(64bit)
    liblirc_client.so.0()(64bit)
    liblo.so.0()(64bit)
    liblrdf.so.2()(64bit)
    libqt-mt.so.3()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    perl(File::Basename)
    perl(File::Copy)
    perl(Getopt::Long)
    perl(XML::Twig)
    perl(strict)
* 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.
* 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.
* not a web app.

I would approve this if I had "fedorabugs" membership (which I've requested).

-- 
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.