[Bug 206989] Review Request: twinkle - A SIP Soft Phone

[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: twinkle - A SIP Soft Phone


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206989


jima at beer.tclug.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org  2006-09-29 16:28 EST -------
Using my own review checklist:
http://beer.tclug.org/fedora-extras/review-checklist-1.1.txt

1. No rpmlint output from the main or source RPM.  However, from the
debuginfo, I got:
W: twinkle-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/twinkle-0.8.1/src/gui/.moc
W: twinkle-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/twinkle-0.8.1/src/gui/.moc
W: twinkle-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/twinkle-0.8.1/src/gui/.ui
W: twinkle-debuginfo hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/twinkle-0.8.1/src/gui/.ui

I have no idea how important that is.

2. Package seems to adhere to the Package Naming Guidelines.
3. Spec is %{name}.spec
4. Package appears to meet the Packaging Guidelines.
5. Package is GPL...
6. ...and the spec agrees.
7. COPYING included in %doc
8. Spec is in American English.
9. Spec is legible.
10. Tarball MD5 matches upstream (245ffd3b4a6f968d8f80d42f6aad079c).
11. Packages build on FC5/i386, FC5/ppc, and FC6/i386.
12. n/a, unless it fails to build on x86_64.
13. Package built in Plague, so if there are any missing BRs, they're non-fatal
(and might silently corrupt this package!)
14. Package makes no effort to handle locales.  Oh well.
15. n/a, no shared libraries.
16. Package is not designed to be relocatable.  Are any?
17. Package owns all directories it creates (aside from those owned by filesystem).
18. No duplicate files.
19. Permissions look sane, and there's a %defattr entry.
20. Spec has a valid %clean section.
21. Macro use consistent.
22. Package contains code and (I believe) permissable content.
23. Documentation is minimal enough...
24. ...and shouldn't affect runtime.
25. n/a, no header files or static libraries.
26. n/a, no .pc files.
27. n/a, no library files.
28. n/a, no -devel subpackage.
29. n/a, no .la files.
30. Desktop file appears to get installed in the prescribed manner.
31. Nothing else owns anything with the name "twinkle," so I think we're safe.
32. Release tag contains %{?dist}, unsurprisingly.
33. n/a, already contains COPYING.
34. n/a, translations probably not available.
35. Package builds in Plague/Mock.
36. I can't verify x86_64, but it builds fine on i386 and ppc.  Kevin said it
built under x86_64, though, so we should be good there.
37. Works beautifully under i386.  (I don't have any other test environments.)
38. n/a, no scriptlets.
39. n/a, no subpackages.

Sorry this review took as long as it did; I actually wanted to test the
application to see how well it would work for my own use.  It communicated just
fine with another (closed-source) SIP softphone.

Unless the rpmlint/debuginfo warnings are of particular concern (anyone?), I
think we can probably call twinkle APPROVED.

-- 
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.