[Bug 208208] Review Request: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: MegaMek - a portable, network-enabled BattleTech engine


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208208





------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2006-10-03 14:39 EST -------
Review:

MUST:
* rpmlint on MegaMek srpm gives no output
* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
* package meets packaging guidelines.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
* specfile is legible
* source files match upstream (note that no direct download link provided by SF
so no source URL)
X where did the icon png come from?
* latest version is being packaged
* BuildRequires are proper
* package is not relocatable
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so not -doc subpackage
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no versioned library files
* no .la files
. .desktop file present and installed properly
* not a web app.
X final provides and requires are sane except for %{epoch} in Provide:

$ rpm -q --provides MegaMek
MegaMek.jar.so
megamek = %{epoch}:0.30.11-1
MegaMek = 0.30.11-1

- should the %{epoch} be removed since there isn't one defined?

SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* package builds on i386
* package starts up and does not segfault
X I don't have mock set up to test if the package builds in mock

-- 
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.