[Bug 223943] Review Request: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug!

[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: Nemiver - A C/C++ Debugger for GNOME - point, click, debug!
Alias: nemiver

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223943





------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com  2007-01-24 01:10 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> * missing "BuildRequires: gettext"
> * %defattr missing in -devel package
> * in -devel package, missing "Requires: gnome-vfs2-devel glib2-devel"
> These are "Requires" in the pkgconfig file. glib2-devel is redundant
> (due to glibmm24-devel), but a direct requirement.
 
Oopsie. Fixed in release 2.
 

> * Avoid duplicating the licence file "COPYING" in sub-packages.
> Here the -devel package requires the main package. 

I'm of the opinion that such license files should always be included in any
subpackage ot make the licensing explicitly clear. However, since there is not
officially any such guideline, I don't think this a blocker at all.
 

> * GConf schema files are no %config files and should not be
> marked as such.

My understanding is that schemas should be marked %config, as they are the base
configurations for the package which the system administrator can change as he
or she sees fit, etc. Several other of my packages which use gconf schemas have
them marked as %config(noreplace). Why is it invalid? Thanks.

> * In the scriptlets, you list the two schema files without wildcards.
> You ought to do the same in the %files section, so you will notice
> when the set of schema files changes.

Oooooooh. Good catch; thanks. Fixed in release 2.

URLs for release 2:
Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/nemiver.spec
SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/nemiver-0.3.0-2.src.rpm


-- 
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.