[Bug 239785] Review Request: rott - Rise of the Triad

[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: rott - Rise of the Triad


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239785


faucamp at csir.co.za changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From faucamp at csir.co.za  2007-05-17 03:41 EST -------
On the -registered issue: Good point in comment #13, I agree, and its good to
have it in writing for future reference. Proceeding with review:

MUST items:
 * rpmlint is silent on all binary and -debug packages
 * rpmlint output for src.rpm:

   W: rott patch-not-applied Patch99: rott-1.0-registered.patch
   -- This patch is applied during %build for the special -registered package;
this is clearly commented in the spec

 * package is named well
 * spec file is named well
 * package meets Packaging Guidelines
 * package license is GPL, COPYING file included
 * License field in spec file matches actual license
 * license file is included in %doc
 * spec file is written in American English and legible
 * package source md5sum matches upstream source:

c1c6cbecf00f2229cf2e0053334dcfc1  rott-1.0.tar.gz

 * package builds successfully on i386 and x86_64 (PPC not tested)
 * BuildRequires are good
 * Requires are good
 * package handles locales properly (no locales)
 * package has no need for %post and %postun sections
 * package is not relocatable
 * package owns directories it creates
 * no duplicate entries in %files
 * file permissions are good
 * proper %clean section
 * spec file macros are used consistently
 * package contains only GPL'ed code, not content
 * no -doc, -devel subpackages necessary
X- some docs are missing (see comment #5)
 * contents in %doc not required for runtime functionality of application
 * .desktop files present and properly handled

SHOULD items:
 * package builds in mock (fc6/i386)
 * package functions properly on i386 and x86_64

Worth special mention:
 * the packager has taken every precaution and put a lot of effort into handling
the (non-shipped) content required for both binary packages in order to improve
end-user experience

Hans, please just add the missing documentation files before importing the package.

Other than that, everything looks fine.

-------------------------
This package is APPROVED.
-------------------------

-- 
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.