[Bug 199029] Review Request: jokosher

[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: jokosher
Alias: jokosher

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199029


peter at thecodergeek.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEEDINFO
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(snecklifter at gmail.
                   |                            |com)




------- Additional Comments From peter at thecodergeek.com  2007-03-24 13:25 EST -------
(In reply to comment #70)
> > BAD: The package does not follow the Naming Guidelines: The Release tag should
> > be "0.%{X}.%{alphatag}" or equivalent as noted in the "Pre-Release packages"
> > section of the naming guidelines (Packaging/NamingGuidelines on the wiki).
> 
> This should now be fixed as I have started bumping the %{X} section with each
> new build.
> 

That's still not correct. For pre-release snapshots, the final version from
upstream will be Release 1, so everything before it must be Release 0.X, and
with a suffix of the snapshot date tag too.

Everything else looks fixed, with the exception of your dependencies: pycairo is
a dependency of pygtk2, so you should remove the former.

GOOD: Builds fine in mock (x86_64 and i386, FC-6 and Devel); and rpmlint is
silent on the source and built (noarch) packages. 


> Okay, let me know if this becomes a problem. Note I am doing an svn export as
> opposed to a svn checkout to lose all the usual svn cruft.
>  
I just did the svn export again and it came up with a yet different MD5 hash, so
that seems to be entirely a false positive.

It's a minor issue, too, but for some parts in your %files section, you use the
%name macro, yet in others you hardcode "jokosher." Is there a specific reason
for this inconsistency?

You just need to address these three issues, then it'll be approved. Thanks.

-- 
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.