[Bug 468197] Review Request: v4l2ucp - Video4linux universal control panel

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Oct 23 15:33:29 UTC 2008


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468197


Jon Stanley <jonstanley at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jonstanley at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |jonstanley at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #2 from Jon Stanley <jonstanley at gmail.com>  2008-10-23 11:33:28 EDT ---
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
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:

N/A - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
N/A - Spec handles locales/find_lang
N/A - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
N/A - Doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

N/A - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
N/A - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
N/A - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
N/A - .so files in -devel subpackage.
N/A - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
N/A - .la files are removed.

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.
N/A - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:
(include output of for i in *rpm; do echo $i; rpm -qp --provides $i; echo =;
rpm -qp --requires $i; echo; done
manually indented after checking each line.  I also remove the rpmlib junk and
anything provided by glibc.)

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
N/A - Should function as described.
OK - Should have sane scriptlets.
OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
N/A - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

As noted on IRC, the category in the spec is a little off, but not a blocker.

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.




More information about the package-review mailing list