[Bug 213193] Review Request: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Nov 3 02:40:28 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: gaim-rhythmbox - Rhythmbox plugin for GAIM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213193
------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2006-11-02 21:40 EST -------
GOOD
====
* rpmlint output clean
* Package named appropriately
* Source matches upstream:
a9e836986dae7857b408120782264d5a gaim-rhythmbox-2.0beta3.tar.gz
* Builds in mock on FC6-i386, FC6-x86_64, FC7-i386, FC7-x86_64
* GPL license ok, license file included
* Spec file legible and in Am. English.
* Runs without crashing. Seems to work as expected with my AIM account.
* No missing BR:
* No locales
* Not relocatable
* Not a gui app; no need for a .desktop file
* No need to run ldconfig; .so files are application plugins that aren't
part of the system linker path.
* Directory ownership ok
* No duplicate %files
* No need for -doc or -devel subpackages
MUSTFIX
=======
* Inconsistent use of the custom 'prever' macro. You only use it once
in %prep, but not at all in Source0 or Release. Either use it in all
3 places, or not at all.
NOTES
=====
* You could also include AUTHORS and README in %doc
* There's no need to split each sentence in %description into a separate
paragraph. It just adds unnecessary whitespace and doesn't make it any
easier to read.
* Send the configure patch upstream so that it can be included in the final
release.
* I wouldn't worry about the shared library dependencies in the .so file.
If you run ldd on the gaim executable itself, you'll see an almost-identical
list of dependencies.
Not much here. Just fix the use of the prever macro and you're good to go.
--
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