[Bug 222612] Review Request: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Feb 19 23:33:30 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: poker2d - GTK poker client to play on a poker-network server
Alias: poker2d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222612
------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org 2007-02-19 18:33 EST -------
GOOD
====
* Source matches upstream:
db5dd531d4d7113c1777ba66a41fe803 poker-network-1.0.35.tar.gz
* GPL license ok, license file included
* rpmlint output clean
* Spec file legible and in Am. English
* Compiles and builds on FC6-i386, FC6-x86_64, devel-i386, devel-x86_64
* Language files properly handled with %find_lang
* No shared libraries in the default linker path
* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT cleaned where appropriate
* Package owns all directories that it creates
* No duplicate %files
* No need for -devel subpackage
* No need for separate -doc subpackage
* Not relocatable
* .desktop file installed correctly
* No pkgconfig files
MUSTFIX
=======
* .la droppings. If these are needed, then document the reason why in the
spec file.
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_pokerinterface.la
/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_pokerinterface2_4.la
* The documentation file NIHPHOBIA is cute, but unnecessary.
COMMENTS
========
* poker2d currently shares the same source tarball as poker-network. But
as the comment mentions in the spec file, these will eventually be split
upstream into two separate tarballs. This is acceptable.
* poker2d-common contains a single file. Is it really necessary to split this
into a separate subpackage?
* Runs fine on FC6, but I've had odd crashes on FC7 with python 2.5.
Upstream may want to consider more testing with python 2.5.
--
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