[Bug 420431] Review Request: gkrellm-top - GKrellM plugin which shows 3 most CPU intensive processes
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Dec 12 09:03:26 UTC 2007
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: gkrellm-top - GKrellM plugin which shows 3 most CPU intensive processes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=420431
panemade at gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com 2007-12-12 04:03 EST -------
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM.
+ source files match upstream.
9699f4068a63202643b15a75232e69d8 gkrelltop_2.2.10.orig.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
- License text is included in package.
+ %doc files present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ Compiler flags are honored correctly.
+ defattr usage is correct but good to have it as defattr(-,root,root,-)
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ no scriptlets are used.
+ Package gkrellm-top-2.2.10-1.fc9
Provides: gkrelltop.so gkrelltopd.so
Requires: gkrellm >= 2.2.0 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libglib-2.0.so.0
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list