[Bug 1058941] New: Review Request: GtkAda3 - Ada binding to GTK+ 3

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jan 28 19:41:14 UTC 2014


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058941

            Bug ID: 1058941
           Summary: Review Request: GtkAda3 - Ada binding to GTK+ 3
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: nobody at fedoraproject.org
          Reporter: bjorn at xn--rombobjrn-67a.se
        QA Contact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org
                CC: package-review at lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.4.2-1/GtkAda3.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.rombobjörn.se/packages/GtkAda3-3.4.2-1/GtkAda3-3.4.2-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
GTKada is an Ada binding to the graphical toolkit GTK+. It allows you to
develop graphical user interfaces in Ada using GTK+.

This package contains GTKada 3.x. The existing package GtkAda becomes a
compatibility package.

RPMlint output:
GtkAda3.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/libgtkada-3.4.so.2
This is normal.

GtkAda3-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/examples/testgtk/create_label.adb
That file seems to contain strings in different encodings on purpose.

GtkAda3-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/examples/testgtk/marble.xpm
That's not a text file.

GtkAda3-doc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/GtkAda3/gtkada_ug/_sources/license.txt
GtkAda3-devel.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning
/usr/share/man/man1/gtkada-config.1.gz 14: warning: macro `l' not defined
Those are now fixed upstream.

GtkAda3-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary gtkada-dialog
That program isn't very useful. It's included mostly because I don't have a
good reason to remove it.

Fedora Account System Username: rombobeorn

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component


More information about the package-review mailing list