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=460352
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2008-11-06 12:39:43 EDT ---
Thanks, spot.
So, this package is simple and looks pretty good except for the license tag.
Is there any point to mentioning what operating systems the program works on?
Does that even matter for a Fedora package?
I note the following complaint from desktop-file-install:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/xwota-0.4-4.fc10.x86_64/usr/share/applications/xwota.desktop:
warning: value "xwota.png" for key "Icon" in group "Desktop Entry" is an icon
name with an extension, but there should be no extension as described in the
Icon Theme Specification if the value is not an absolute path
So just fix that and the license tag and the desktop file up and this should be
ready to go.
Finally, I note that you have submitted 24 packages for review, while you've
only reviewed three packages. I will periodically revisit your packages as I
work through the queue and I suppose eventually all of them will be reviewed
but the reviewers are much more likely to review your packages if you do some
more reviews yourself.
* source files match upstream:
8c8f996270e4e93769ba0604c94bfaf5f8226b43eccb0b39c4938e4b5a7eec3c
xwota-0.4.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field needs a fix.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
xwota = 0.4-4.fc10
xwota(x86-64) = 0.4-4.fc10
=
libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I don't really know how to
use
the program, but I installed it and it seemed to work.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
X desktop file elicits a complaint from desktop-file-install.
--
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.