[Bug 188574] Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue May 23 04:46:48 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: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188574





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-05-23 00:39 EST -------
Thanks; your method for generating the fixed tarball is quite nice.

You might consider being a bit more descriptive in %description.  Perhaps
something like:

A port of the Really Slick Screensavers to GLX.  Provides several visually
impressive and graphically intensive screensavers.

Note that this package contains only the display hacks themselves; you will need
to install the appropriate subpackage for your desktop environment in order to
use them as screensavers.

(Or whatever; I'm making this up on the spot.  The point is that people won't
understand what is meant by "contains only the hacks themselves".)

The permissions on rss-glx-rm-matrixview.sh are 0775, which is a bit odd (and
rpmlint complains about it).  Executable documentation is generally frowned upon
and rpmlint also complains about it (because your documentation pulls in an
additional /bin/bash dependency).  I would recommend just installing it 0644 and
leave it at that.

Other rpmlint warnings are bogus as previously addressed.

Is there any reason to package rss-glx_install.pl?  This pulls in an odd
perl(strict) dependency but not a plain perl dependency, which looks a bit odd.
 (I know perl provides perl(strict), but perl probably shouldn't be needed at all.)

You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in some places and %buildroot in others.  The packaging
guidelines require one or the other to be used consistently.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
X specfile is properly named and is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
O source files don't match upsteam due to removal of unacceptable content.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint complains about the executable rm-matrixview script.
? final provides are fine; requires are a bit odd:
   rss-glx = 0.8.1-0.3.fc6
  -
   /bin/bash
   /usr/bin/env
   libGL.so.1()(64bit)
   libGLU.so.1()(64bit)
   libICE.so.6()(64bit)
   libSM.so.6()(64bit)
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libalut.so.0()(64bit)
   libbz2.so.1()(64bit)
   libc.so.6()(64bit)
   libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libm.so.6()(64bit)
   libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
   libopenal.so.0()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
?  perl(strict)
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
X file permissions are appropriate (ok except for mode 770 rss-glx-rm-matrixview.sh
* %clean is present
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
O not a GUI app.  (Well, sort of; special desktop files for each environment are
included, but the hacks aren't indended to be run directly.)

-- 
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 mailing list