[Bug 389701] Review Request: osmo - Personal organizer

[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: osmo - Personal organizer


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=389701


wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro  2007-11-21 16:19 EST -------
Package Review for osmo-0.1.2-6.fc8.src.rpm
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on:rawhide/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output: none
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type:GPLv2+
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: 766c5020b08cee4f43c45fb23d5623fbea9b2b11
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [x] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on:rawhide and F7
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:rawhide and F7
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
 [x] File based requires are sane.


=== Issues ===
1. None

=== Final Notes ===
1. It would be awesome if you would preserve the timestamps of the pixmaps files
(png and svg).
2. For esthetics's sake and compliance with
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-f3d77b27a5d29dfc1f5600ef3fc836f2e317badf,
please use (in %make) $RPM_OPT_FLAGS instead of %{optflags} (everywhere else you
have used the uppercase version). You could do this change in the current
version, before commit, no need to bump release for that.

================
*** APPROVED ***
================



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.