[Bug 231005] gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed May 30 17:27:12 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: gnome-vfs2-obexftp: ObexFTP filesystem support for GNOME


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231005


mclasen at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mclasen at redhat.com




------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com  2007-05-30 13:27 EST -------
rpmlint output:
Package name: ok
spec name: ok
packaging guidelines: ok
license: there is a clarification of the current status in README.license,
  which is good; we should really get upstream to clarify this though.
license field: follows the discussion earlier in this bug, ok
license files included: ok
spec file language: excellent
spec file legibility: had no problems
upstream source: ok
buildable: 
complete buildrequires: 
locale handling: n/a
shared libs: n/a
relocatable: n/a
directory ownership: ok
duplicate files: ok
file permissions: 
%clean: ok
macro use: ok
package contains code: ok
large docs: n/a
%doc: ok
headers: n/a
static libs: n/a
.pc files: n/a
shared libs: n/a
-devel package: n/a
.la files: ok
desktop files: n/a
directory ownership again: still ok
%install cleaning buildroot: ok
utf8 filenames: ok


suggestions: 
- use %{?dist} 
- require perl(XML::Parser), which is the more perl-correct version of 
  that requires
- Would be nice if the %description mentioned Bluetooth. 
- Might also be nice if the description did _not_ mention Midnight
  Commander... 
- The capitalization of ObexFTP should be consistent between summary
  and description

-- 
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