[Bug 225130] Review Request: smashteroid - Astrosmash Remake

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jan 29 19:48:55 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: smashteroid - Astrosmash Remake


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225130





------- Additional Comments From chris.stone at gmail.com  2007-01-29 14:48 EST -------
Here is my review:
==== REVIEW CHECKLIST ====
- rpmlint output clean
- package named according to package naming guidelines
- spec filename matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- licensed with open source compatible license
- license field matches actual license
- license text included in %doc
- spec written in American english
- spec legible
- sources match upstream
fbdd2aed12da3f2e4802c629fcdd7979  astro111src.zip
- successfully compiles and builds on FC-6 x86_64
- all build dependencies listed in BR
- no locales
- no shared libraries
- not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
X package does not pull in all directories it uses
- no duplicates in %files
- file permissions set properly
- contains proper %clean
- macro usage consistent
- contains code
- no large documentation
- files in %doc do not affect runtime
- no header files or static libraries
- no pkgconfig files
- no library files with suffix
- no devel subpackage required
- no libtool archives
- contains proper .desktop file
- does not own files or directories owned by other packages

==== MUST FIX ====
- Shouldnt this require hicolor-icon-theme?

==== SHOULD FIX ====
- Use http://www.t3-i.com/smashteroid.htm as URL
- inform upstream of 64bit compiler warnings

==== QUESTIONS ====
- patch seems to include license-change.txt but its not included in %doc?
- patch seems littered with ^Ms, not an issue, but difficult to read

-- 
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