[Bug 216355] Review Request: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR

[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: vdr-skins - Collection of OSD skins for VDR


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216355


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|normal                      |medium




------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net  2007-04-22 08:48 EST -------
- rpmlint checks return:
E: vdr-skins non-standard-gid /etc/vdr/themes/[...].theme video
E: vdr-skins non-standard-uid /etc/vdr/themes/[...].theme vdr
W: vdr-skins dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm
W: vdr-skins dangling-symlink /usr/share/vdr/text2skin/Enigma/FontMonoSpaced.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera/VeraMono.ttf
W: vdr-skins incoherent-version-in-changelog 20061119-3 20061119-1
W: vdr-skins non-conffile-in-etc /etc/vdr/themes/[...].theme
W: vdr-skins no-url-tag
W: vdr-skins symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/vdr/text2skin/Enigma/FontMonoSpaced.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera/VeraMono.ttf


- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source doesn't match upstream (see below)
- package compiles on devel (x86_84)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file

o Some parts under /etc should probably move into /usr/share.

o Some URLs are broken like http://www.magoa.net/sttng-blue.theme and 
  http://vdr.pfroen.de/download/DeepBlue-0.1.4.tar.gz.

o Due to the latter the prepare script does not work till the end.

o The ones that were created by the script had different md5sums (but maybe
  that's expected due to tar/bz2 timestamping, in that case: do we have some
  tarball comparison tool?). I could only verify EgalSimple-1.0-demo.tar.bz2
  and SilverGreen-0.1.7.tar.bz2

[side note: why are the logos removed? Legal issues?]


-- 
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.