[Bug 203180] Review Request: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Aug 18 20:41:53 UTC 2006
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: hnb - Hierarchical Notebook
jima at beer.tclug.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
------- Additional Comments From jima at beer.tclug.org 2006-08-18 16:32 EST -------
Again, using my review checklist:
1. No rpmlint output. Yay!
2. Package appears to meet Naming Guidelines.
3. Spec is named hnb.spec.
4. Package seems to meet the Packaging Guidelines, too.
5. Package licensed GPL...
6. ...as the spec claims.
7. COPYING in included in %doc.
8. Spec appears to be American English...not perfect (incomplete sentence in
%description), but English enough.
9. Spec is readable.
10. Tarball matches upstream. Err, sort of; will elaborate below.
11. Package builds for i386 & ppc (the two supported archs I have).
12. n/a, AFAIK.
13. BuildReq's ncurses-devel, which seems valid enough.
17. n/a, doesn't create any directories (besides %doc, which it does own).
18. No duplicate %files entries.
19. %defattr looks good.
20. %clean looks good.
21. Macro use appears consistent.
22. Package contains only code, AFAICS.
23. Documentation is minimal.
24. %doc files don't appear to affect runtime.
25. No header/static libraries.
26. No .pc files.
27. No library files.
28. No -devel subpackage.
29. No .la files.
30. No GUI applications.
31. Doesn't own any directories besides %doc, which I doubt any other packages
32. n/a, already has COPYING.
33. No translations available, that I immediately see.
34. Package builds in Plague.
35. I verified i386/ppc, submitter says he built it on x86_64.
36. Package runs, and certainly appears to work!
37. No scriptlets.
38. No subpackages.
As discussed on IRC, the submitted version (1.9.18) isn't listed in their
download section, only behind a link on their page leading to a directory
supposedly containing hnb-1.9.18pre3. While (as you said, and I agree) the site
looks fairly abandonned, I'd appreciate if you'd attempt to contact the
authors to get them to make the release a teeny bit more official. Also, keep
in mind that if the project *is* abandonned, you're probably responsible for
fixing any critical bugs with the package that might come up.
Anyways, since this submission meets the guidelines as far as I understand them,
I think we can call this APPROVED.
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the package-review