Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Rename request: meego-gtk-engine - GTK engine for MeeGo Netbook UX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=663817
Summary: Rename request: meego-gtk-engine - GTK engine for MeeGo Netbook UX Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pbrobinson@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Blocks: 620175 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
SPEC: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/meego-gtk-engine.spec SRPM: http://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/meego-gtk-engine-1.2.4-0.1.fc15.src.rpm
Description: GTK engine for MeeGo Netbook UX
Original review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507943
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=663817
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |michel+fdr@sylvestre.me AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel+fdr@sylvestre.me
--- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me 2010-12-18 16:55:49 EST --- Almost ready; there are two small things that need fixing:
- release number should have the snapshot date, VCS used and (preferably) commit hash - %install should start with the build root getting cleaned with rm -rf
(see full review below for both items)
* TODO Review [75%] - [X] Names [2/2] - [X] Package name - [X] Spec name - [-] Package version [1/2] - [X] Version number from configure.ac this should be 1.2.2, but there was a tag for a 1.2.3 release. I'm assuming that therefore this is a 1.2.4 pre-release as you assumed, but could you bug upstream about it? - [ ] Release tag probably should use either pre- or post-release snapshot scheme? e.g. [0.]1.%{date}git%{gitrev} - [X] Meets [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines%5D%5Bguidelines]] - [X] Source files match upstream $ md5sum test.tar.bz2 ../SOURCES/meego-gtk-engine-1.2.4-20100610.tar.bz2 560d9be2744888096baf39dd8aacc506 test.tar.bz2 560d9be2744888096baf39dd8aacc506 ../SOURCES/meego-gtk-engine-1.2.4-20100610.tar.bz2
- [X] [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries%5D%5BNo bundled libraries]] - [X] License [4/4] - [X] License is Fedora-approved - [X] No licensing conflict - [X] License field accurate - [X] License included iff packaged by upstream - [X] rpmlint [2/2] - [X] on src.rpm meego-gtk-engine.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name} meego-gtk-engine.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version} meego-gtk-engine.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{git_version} meego-gtk-engine.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{name} meego-gtk-engine.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{version} meego-gtk-engine.src:3: W: macro-in-comment %{git_date} => can be ignored -- just checkout / packaging instructions
meego-gtk-engine.src: W: invalid-url Source0: meego-gtk-engine-1.2.4-20100610.tar.bz2 => can be ignored: snapshot package, not available upstream
- [X] on x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. - [X] Language & locale [3/3] - [X] Spec in US English - [X] Spec legible - [X] Use %find_lang to handle locale files N/A - [X] Build [3/3] - [X] Koji results http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2675410 - [X] BRs complete - [X] Directory ownership - [-] Spec inspection [7/11] - [X] ldconfig for libraries N/A - [X] No duplicate files - [X] File permissions - [X] Filenames must be UTF-8 - [X] no BuildRoot ([[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag%5D%5Bexcep... if targeting EPEL5]]) - [X] No %clean section ([[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean%5D%5Bexcept if targeting EPEL]]) - [ ] %buildroot cleaned on %install - [X] Macro usage consistent
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=663817
--- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com 2010-12-18 17:21:53 EST --- (In reply to comment #1)
Almost ready; there are two small things that need fixing:
- release number should have the snapshot date, VCS used and (preferably)
commit hash
Have you got a link to this documentation?
- %install should start with the build root getting cleaned with rm -rf
It my understanding is that with the %clean section this is no longer required.
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=663817
--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me 2010-12-19 01:13:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
Almost ready; there are two small things that need fixing:
- release number should have the snapshot date, VCS used and (preferably)
commit hash
Have you got a link to this documentation?
Yes; forgot to include it: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_package...
(see the subsection on snapshots, with SVN and Git examples)
- %install should start with the build root getting cleaned with rm -rf
It my understanding is that with the %clean section this is no longer required.
Ah, whoops. It's actually the BuildRoot change -- the %clean change just takes care of the post-building cleanup: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
So it's just the release number, and then this is good to go.
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=663817
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2012-01-23 05:13:42
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla