[Bug 474909] Review Request: gxmms2 - A graphical audio player

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474909


Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <fedora at christoph-wickert.de>  2008-12-22 17:55:57 EDT ---
Review for 
46209efc4032e5c76ef176de60dc3bd6  gxmms2-0.7.0-1.fc11.src.rpm

OK - MUST: rpmlint silent on all packages. 
OK - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
OK - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
OK - MUST: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2) and
meets the Licensing Guidelines.
FIX - MUST: The License field in the package spec file does not the actual
license: License field is GPLv2#, but I can't find the "or any later version"
anywhere in the headers of the source.
OK - MUST: The license file from the source package is included in %doc.
OK - MUST: The spec file is in American English.
OK - MUST: The spec file for the is legible.
OK - MUST: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source by
MD5 5419a977d75e33f201fa63f5c5d196a6
OK - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on
i386
OK - MUST: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
OK - MUST: The package is not designed to be relocatable.
OK - MUST: The package owns all directories that it creates.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files
listing.
OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. Every %files section includes
a %defattr(...) line.
OK - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot}.
OK - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
OK - MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content.
OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.
OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
OK - MUST: The Package contains a GUI application and includes a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section.
OK - MUST: The Package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
OK - MUST: The package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install.
OK - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
OK - SHOULD: The reviewer has tested that the package builds in mock.
OK - SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK - SHOULD: Both packages function as described.

Notes:
1. I wonder if gxmms2 should have "Requires: xmms2."
2. The "BuildRequires: gkrellm-devel" could be moved to the gkrellxmms2
subpackage
3. If you fix the license tag this package is

APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.