[Bug 489337] Review Request: leonidas-backgrounds - Leonidas desktop backgrounds

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 9 19:24:02 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=489337





--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-03-09 15:24:01 EDT ---
Is there a canonical upstream source for the tarball besides this package?  If
so, could you make Source0: be a full URL to it, or provide (in comments)
instructions for generating that tarball?  And if this is the canonical source,
please indicate that in the spec.

Note to anyone else looking: /usr/share/backgrounds is provided by filesystem
in F11, so it's not left unowned.

However, it looks like /usr/share/gnome-background-properties is unowned.  I'm
not really sure what to do about it; several other *-backgrounds packages own
it, so it wouldn't be unreasonable for this package to own it as well.

FYI, "cp -a" implies "-r".

X can't compare source files against 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 included in package.
? latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   leonidas-backgrounds = 10.92.1-1.fc11
  =
   (none)

X /usr/share/gnome-background-properties is unowned.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* acceptable content.

-- 
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