[Bug 210467] Review Request: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool

[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: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210467


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |kevin at tummy.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-10-14 13:56 EST -------
OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
7b3c2189f24f3cee48acb4085944b7c4  wallpapoz-0.3.tar.bz2
7b3c2189f24f3cee48acb4085944b7c4  wallpapoz-0.3.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
i386/x86_64 - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. The srcurl and icondir macros seem like macro overkill to me, and
make the spec harder to read IMHO. Not a blocker, but suggest removing them.

2. Does the install.py script not work? Why are you doing your own
install in %install. Could some of these changes get submitted upstream?
It looks like they have a custom install.py, perhaps you could get them
to switch to a more standard one?


-- 
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.