[Bug 222043] Review Request: gnomescan - Gnome Scanner Utility

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jan 11 07:25:22 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: gnomescan - Gnome Scanner Utility


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222043


panemade at gmail.com changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From panemade at gmail.com  2007-01-11 02:25 EST -------
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS.
+ source files match upstream.
7c481bb5ce112ebf5889bc4cd63f5836  gnomescan-0.4.0.2.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 included in package.
+ %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required.
+ %doc does not affect runtime.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code Not contents.
+ no static libraries present.
+ no gnomescan.pc and gnomescanui.pc files present.
+ -devel subpackage exists
+ included
  %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
  %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
+ no .la files.
+ translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ no scriptlets used.
+ Desktop files are handled correctly in spec.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ gui app.
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list