[Bug 458714] Review Request: libkate - Libraries to handle the Kate bitstream format
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Apr 10 04:54:08 UTC 2009
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=458714
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |oget.fedora at gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |oget.fedora at gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #16 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> 2009-04-10 00:54:07 EDT ---
I made the full review. Nothing major. There are a few things to go over:
* rpmlint says:
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency liboggz
This one can be ignored
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/kdj/ui_editor.py 0644
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/kdj/finder.py 0644
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/kdj/muxer.py 0644
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/kdj/tools.py 0644
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/kdj/options.py 0644
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/kdj/ui_main.py 0644
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/kdj/ui_options.py 0644
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/kdj/constants.py 0644
libkate-utils.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/kdj/demuxer.py 0644
Could you remove the shebangs from these guys?
! Installing docs into %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} is the usual convention in
Fedora. configure script must have a flag for setting this.
* Could you package the AUTHORS, ChangeLog, COPYING, README and THANKS files?
Especially COPYING is a requirement to package.
? Is examples/ directory worth packaging (into devel)?
* New guidelines prefer %global over %define.
? Could you briefly explain (in the SPEC file as a comment) what the patch
does?
--
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