Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vdr-osdteletext - OSD teletext plugin for VDR

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190344

ville.skytta@iki.fi changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |190343

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vdr-osdteletext - OSD teletext plugin for VDR

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190344

ville.skytta@iki.fi changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@leemhuis.info |nobody@fedoraproject.org

------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta@iki.fi 2006-08-24 17:54 EST ------- And intentionally so.

Dealing with lots of packages and having multiple versions of specfiles of some floating around is a scenario I'm guaranteed to screw up every now and then. And because the specfile is only a part of a submission and the whole SRPM contents need to be reviewed anyway, I prefer to not upload specfiles separately -- doing so and uploading just the SRPM is IMO more efficient use of everyone's time.

If this is a blocker for your review of this package, let me know and I'll upload the spec somewhere. Note however that the parent vdr package (bug 190343) needs to be reviewed first.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vdr-osdteletext - OSD teletext plugin for VDR

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190344

------- Additional Comments From rc040203@freenet.de 2006-08-25 04:13 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)

I do not know about other reviewers but I like to take a look into the spec file before I decide whether or not to spend more time with a review request.

I agree with Till.

In addition to that, during reviews, reviewing the spec often is sufficient to provide comments on/monitor progress of a package. In such cases, the spec file avoids unnecessarily wasting bandwidth on d/l's of srpms.

(In this particular case, the srpm is small, so providing the spec would not make much difference to d/l'ing the srpm. In case of XX MB packages, it does.)

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: vdr-osdteletext - OSD teletext plugin for VDR

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190344

kevin@tummy.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |kevin@tummy.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| |

------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2006-11-12 00:10 EST ------- I agree with the above comments that having a easy link to the .spec file is a good thing and helps reviewers.

That said, here's a review of this package:

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (GPL) OK - License field in spec matches OK - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 52c219e38a089504071237209ad114cd vdr-osdteletext-0.5.1.tgz 52c219e38a089504071237209ad114cd vdr-osdteletext-0.5.1.tgz.1 OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. See below - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock. x86_64/i386 - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. rpmlint says:

E: vdr-osdteletext non-standard-uid /var/cache/vdr/osdteletext vdr W: vdr-osdteletext dangerous-command-in-%preun rm

Can both be ignored. Would be nice to get rid of the rm, but it looks to be the same perl-Template issue that vdr had, so there isn't a way around it. ;(

I don't see any blockers, so this package is APPROVED.

Don't forget to close this bug NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built.