[Bug 245016] New: PolicyKit-gnome package review

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016

Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review
           Product: Fedora
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: low
          Priority: low
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail],[e-mail]

http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/PolicyKit-gnome.spec
http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/PolicyKit-gnome-0.3-1.fc8.src.rpm

Thanks.

[Bug 245016] PolicyKit-gnome package review

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 245016] PolicyKit-gnome package review

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-06-20 16:07 EST -------
Preludes:

- should use full source url

- why do you need to BR both dbus-glib and dbus-glib-devel ?

- might be worthwhile to drop the libgnomeui dependency

[Bug 245016] PolicyKit-gnome package review

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-06-21 00:25 EST -------
Formal checklist:

rpmlint: only warns about no docs in the -demo subpackage. I wonder if you
want to include the sourcecode in the package, to make the demo actually useful
for people looking for example code ?

package name: follows tarball name, ok
spec file name: ok
packaging guidelines: 
  - the source url was already mentioned
  - the %build section should also have a make, not just a configure
license: ok
license field: ok
license file: ok, 
American English: yes
legibility: excellent
upstream sources: ok
buildable: yes
excludearch: n/a
BRs: ok
locale handling: n/a (LINGUAS is empty atm)
shared libs: n/a
relocatable: no
directory ownership:
  - should /usr/share/PolicyKit and /usr/share/PolicyKit/policy be owned
    by PolicyKit itself ?
file list duplicates: none
permissions: ok
%clean section: ok
macro use: ok
content: permissable
documentation: ok
%doc content: ok
header files: n/a
static libs: n/a
pkgconfig files: n/a
shared libs: n/a
libtool archives: n/a
desktop files: ok, I think. maybe you need to put a comment
file ownership: ok
%install: cleans build root
filenames utf8: ok

[Bug 245016] PolicyKit-gnome package review

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-07-26 12:52 EST -------
David did a new release and new srpms here:

http://people.freedesktop.org/~david/release-o-rama-july-2007/

[Bug 245016] PolicyKit-gnome package review

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-07-26 14:11 EST -------
Some comments still apply:

- why do you need to BR both dbus-glib and dbus-glib-devel ?

- might be worthwhile to drop the libgnomeui dependency

But both are not blockers, so I'll say APPROVED

[Bug 245016] PolicyKit-gnome package review

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-07-27 12:38 EST -------
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: PolicyKit-gnome 
Short Description: GNOME auth dialogs for PolicyKit
Owners: [e-mail]
Branches:
InitialCC:

[Bug 245016] PolicyKit-gnome package review

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

[Bug 245016] PolicyKit-gnome package review

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

Summary: PolicyKit-gnome package review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245016

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-07-31 15:54 EST -------
Built in pkg cvs.