[Bug 233597] Review Request: pigment - Media Center Toolkit

[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: pigment - Media Center Toolkit


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233597


jspaleta at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|lxtnow at gmail.com            |jspaleta at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com  2007-04-18 02:54 EST -------
okay those -rpath calls are false alarms, running a local build on x86 with
check-rpaths doesn't abort.

0.1.5 APPROVED
Looks good. I'm going to take assignment of this as the reviewer and flag it as
approved.  From the discussion on maintainers-list its pretty clear that this
GPL exception falls into normal allowed license practices. 

+ All build dependencies listed in BuildRequires, 
+ Packages do not contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
  contains shared library as well as python bindings... 
  not strictly a python addon.
+ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with GPL with special exception
+ License field in the package spec is GPL.
+ The sources used to build the package match the upstream source, 
   http://elisa.fluendo.com/static/download/pigment/pigment-0.1.5.tar.gz
   md5sum   d39000c031e35d5a5835343161ce4bf8
   matches included source
+ rpmlint appears to return cleanly
+ The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
+ includes the text of the license(s) in %doc.
+ The spec file is in english-ese.
+ The spec file for the package is legible. 
+ The package must successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms 
   on x86 developement using mock
+ no locales to worry about
+ ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
+ package not relocatable
+ owns all directories that it creates. 
+ no duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files set properly. 
+ %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ consistent use of macros
+ The package contains code, or permissable content. 
+ no doc subpackage. gtk-docs are placed in the -devel package 
+ %doc items do not affect runtime      
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
+ no statics
+ -devel package correctly 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ devel packages requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency
+ No GUI apps
+ Doesn't duplicate directory or file ownership afaict
+ beginning of %install has rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).


-- 
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.