[Bug 480572] Review Request: xgridloc - An application for the calculation of Maidenhead QRA Locators

[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=480572


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

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




--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-09 21:08:06 EDT ---
I'm sorry that nobody has looked at this yet.  It builds cleanly on rawhide and
seems to install and run fine (although I have no idea at all what data I'm
supposed to provide).

The tarball in the src.rpm does not match the tarball I downloaded from the
Source0: URL.  Do you know why this might be the case?  It looks like the
upstream source differs in that it includes a COPYING file, although it's v3 of
the copying file while the source still seems to be GPLv2+ (which is OK; the
version of the copying file has no bearing on the version of the GPL the
software is under).

The debuginfo package has the C source files but no header files.  I don't know
what might cause that; I don't see anything in the build process that would
indicate anything out of the ordinary.  I'll ask around.

Please note the following output from desktop-file-install:

/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/xgridloc-0.9-5.fc12.x86_64/usr/share/applications/xgridloc.desktop:
warning: value "xgridloc.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

Any reason not to fix that up?

X source files match upstream.   
* 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.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* 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 is missing some files; not sure why.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   xgridloc = 0.9-5.fc12
   xgridloc(x86-64) = 0.9-5.fc12
  =
   /bin/sh
   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)

* 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 could use a tweaak.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.