[Bug 483838] Review Request: vmware-view-open-client - Client for Windows desktops managed by VMware View

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 18 18:13:22 UTC 2009


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=483838





--- Comment #4 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de>  2009-02-18 13:13:19 EDT ---
Good:
+ Base name of the SPEC file matches with package name
+ Package name fits naming guildlines
+ Could download sources from upstream via spectool -g
+ Packaged tar ball matches with upstream one
(md5sum: 8e289d1c6de0b89765420dad6ba0a202)
+ Consistently usage of rpm macros
+ Package contains a license tag with LGPLv2 as a valic OSS license
+ Package contains a verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package contains no subpackages
+ Defintion of the Buildroot is ok
+ Buildroot will been cleaned on the beginning of %clean and %install
+ Rpmlint is silent on source package
+ Package use parallel build
+ Mock build works fine for ix86 architecture
+ Rpmlint is silent on binary package
+ Rpmlint is silent on debuginfo package
+ Debuginfo package contains source files
+ Local install works fine
+ Local uninstall works fine
+ All packaged files are own by the package
+ %file stanza contains no duplicat entries
+ There are no files with the smae name as in other packages in the package
+ %changelog has proper format

Bad:
- Package should have 'ExclusiveArch: %{ix86}'
- Package should use desktop-file-install as described in the
packaging guildlines
- Start of the application caused the following error messages:
SSLLoadSharedLibrary: Failed to load library
libcrypto.so.0.9.8:/usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.8: Kann die Shared-Object-Datei
nicht öffnen: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden
SSLLoadSharedLibrary: Failed to load library
libcrypto.so.0.9.8:/usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.8: Kann die Shared-Object-Datei
nicht öffnen: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden
- Copyright note in the sources says, that LGPLv2+ is the valid license
specification
for the license tag
- %doc stanza is large. So it may be nice, if you can put
View_Client_Admin_Guide.pdf
and View_Client_Help.pdf in a separate subpackage

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list