[Bug 226668] Merge Review: zenity

[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: Merge Review: zenity


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226668


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-08-01 13:17 EST -------
What the heck, let's get rid of the Zs.

The License: tag says "GPL" but the COPYING file contains a copy of the LGPL and
the README file says LGPL.

/usr/share/gnome/help seems to be unowned and I can't trace anything in the
dependency list that would bring in yelp.  I know that there are some open
issues relating to yelp but frankly I don't know the proper thing to do here.

The scriptlets seem wrong; they aren't allowed to fail. 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets recommends the following:

%post
scrollkeeper-update -q -o %{_datadir}/omf/%{name} || :

%postun
scrollkeeper-update -q || :

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   0ac8e29fac4a2cbc26476fc7bfa8d4a0dd19247b3cd7dee89d5d855c2d996815  
   zenity-2.19.1.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   zenity = 2.19.1-1.fc8
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/perl
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libart_lgpl_2.so.2()(64bit)
   libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
   libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit)
   libdbus-glib-1.so.2()(64bit)
   libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libglade-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgnomecanvas-2.so.0()(64bit)
   libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libnotify.so.1()(64bit)
   libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
   libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
   scrollkeeper
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I installed the freshly built 
   package and it seems to work for me.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
X /usr/share/gnome/help is unowned 
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* locale files present; %find_lang used properly.
X scriptlets don't seem correct.
* 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 static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
* not really a GUI app (even though it opens GUI dialogs), so no need for a 
  desktop file.

-- 
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.