[Bug 234711] Review Request: desktop-drapes - A wallpaper manager application for the GNOME desktop

[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: desktop-drapes - A wallpaper manager application for the GNOME desktop


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234711


jspaleta at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jspaleta at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com  2007-04-13 03:38 EST -------

Here are the list of blocker review issues as I see it. I have provided an
updated specfile as an attachment to this report which I believe address each of
the issues below. If you have an issue with any of the suggested changes, please
let me know.


Review items that need to be addressed:
- Change the name to drapes to match upstream tarball and packaging
... Fixed in updated spec
- Need BuildRequires: perl-XML-Parser to build under mock against development tree
... Fixed in updated spec
- Directory ownership issues:
  Package should require hicolor-icon-theme for /usr/share/icons/hicolor/*/apps/
ownership
  Package should require yelp for /usr/share/gnome/help/ ownership
  Package should require libbonobo for /usr/lib/bonobo/servers/ ownership
  Package should own /usr/share/omf/drapes/ and /usr/share/gnome/help/drapes/
and /usr/lib/drapes/
... Fixed in updated spec
- Minor Scriptlet changes to bring the package inline with 
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
... Fixed in updated spec

Details concerning scriptlets:
+ GConf scriptlets and requires look good according to ScriptletSnippets
- scrollkeeper scriptlet updated for to best practises from ScriptletSnippets
... updated spec file contains suggested changes.
- update-desktop-database scriptlets technically not needed, since desktop file
does not reference a MimeType.
... removed in the updates specfile.


Non-blocker item:
- Close button on the About dialog doesn't work.
... This is not a blocker, but should be filed with upstream developer.


Items which pass review:
+ rpmlint not clean, but messages appear to be bogus
pmlint messages from binary with comments inline:
E: desktop-drapes no-binary
  I'm not sure what this means. This looks bogus to me. The /usr/bin/drapes file
is a bash script which shells out to mono. I don't see a problem here.
E: desktop-drapes only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
  I think this is also bogus, the file location /usr/lib/drapes/drapes.exe
appears to be consistent with other mono application packaging such as tomboy.
W: desktop-drapes non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/drapes.schemas
  clearly a bogus warning

+ Specfile name matches name field. Note that both should probably change to
just 'drapes'
+ URL and SOURCE0 tags look good
+ md5sum of included source matches with upstream source
3ae3b1489f33a3e3b6ccaa3dd8782622  drapes-0.5.1.tar.gz
+ GPL License tag matches actual license as listed in source COPYING file.
COPYING file is included in docs section appropriately
+ specfile is in legible english-ese
+ no need for ldconfig no shared libraries
+ locales seem to be handled correctly
+ files section looks good ( after correction for directory ownership )
+ permissions look good
+ clean section looks good
+ install section looks good
+ no need for doc subpackage
+ no need for devel subpackage
+ docs section does not include runtime necessary files
+ desktop file is included and appears to be installed correctly
  (Suggestion, add fedora as vendor-id.. this is included in updated spec)
+ build process appears to be using the rpm build environment compiler options
correctly.




-- 
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.