[Bug 230316] Review Request: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk under the GPL licence

[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: jbrout - Photo manager, written in python/pygtk under the GPL licence


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=230316


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-06-25 15:40 EST -------
Seems there's no longer any reason for the svn checkout instructions since you
can directly fetch a tarball.

There's no real point in mentioning the License in the Summary:, is there?  Or
what language the package is written in?  These things really don't matter to
someone who is interested in what the package does.

Similarly for the %description; does any Fedora user particularly care whether
the software works on Windows 2000?  And who is "me" in the description?  Yum or
some package manager will display this to most users, and surely yum isn't going
to be conversing about itself.

rpmlint does indeed complain about the .mo files not being mentioned in %lang. 
You could list each of them separately in the %files list with %lang(foo) but at
most that would allow someone to save a little space by excluding some specific
lang files.  Nice to have, but not absolutely necessary in my opinion, although
it shouldn't be too terribly difficult if you wanted to do that.

You should probably report this issue with the desktop file upstream:
  key "Categories" is a list and does not have a semicolon as trailing 
  character, fixing
Also, there's no need to use "--vendor=fedora" when installing your desktop file.

Not sure if you noticed it, but there's no point to the %find_lang call, since
this package insatlls nothing into /usr/share/locale.  The %{name}.lang file is
empty.  You might as well just remove the %find_lang call and the -f bit from
%files.

* source files match upstream:
   b62b1bbd72400fd352deb8523a61e2b2da4f81c47f2118dd51488bee626fe77c  
   jbrout-0.2.201.sources.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X summary could use some work.
X description could use some work.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   jbrout = 0.2.201-1.fc10
  =
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/env
   fbida
   jhead
   pygtk2 >= 2.6
   python >= 2.4
   python-imaging
   python-lxml

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I installed and ran this 
   package; it seems to work OK.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
X desktop installed with --vendor=fedora.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.