[Bug 488498] Review Request: gnome-bluetooth2 - Bluetooth graphical utilities

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488498


Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |notting at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #3 from Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com>  2009-03-04 16:04:57 EDT ---
Given that this is named 'gnome-bluetooth' upstream, and the old
gnome-bluetooth is going away, it would seem simpler just to leave this named
gnome-bluetooth, in which case it doesn't require a review.

That being said, since it's mostly new content:

MUST items:
- Package meets naming and packaging guidelines - OK
- Spec file matches base package name. - ***

See above about potentially keeping the gnome-bluetooth name.

- Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK
- Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK
- License - GPLv2+ - ***

*** About half the source is LGPLv2+, which means the whole is GPLv2+.

- License field in spec matches - OK
- License file included in package - ***

It's not, it's only in the tarball.

- Spec in American English - OK
- Spec is legible. - OK
- Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK
- Package needs ExcludeArch - N/A
- BuildRequires correct - OK
- Spec handles locales/find_lang - OK
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. - N/A
- Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK
- Package has a correct %clean section. - OK
- Package has correct buildroot - OK
- Package is code or permissible content. - OK
- Doc subpackage needed/used. - N/A
- Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK

- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. - OK
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun - OK
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - ***

The -devel package does not require pkgconfig.

- .so files in -devel subpackage. - OK
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - OK
- .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 (tested x86_64)
- Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK
- Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK
- Package owns all the directories it creates. - ***

-devel package should own %{_includedir}/gnome-bluetooth

- No rpmlint output. - ***
gnome-bluetooth2.src:21: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bluez-pin
gnome-bluetooth2.src:22: W: unversioned-explicit-provides dbus-bluez-pin-helper
gnome-bluetooth2.src:24: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes bluez-gnome

It's probably best to version these, unless the old bluez packages
are really dead forever and ever amen.

gnome-bluetooth2.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 89, tab:
line 1)

Meh.

gnome-bluetooth2.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/bluetooth-applet.desktop
gnome-bluetooth2.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/gconf/schemas/bluetooth-manager.schemas

Both ignorable.

gnome-bluetooth2.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided bluez-pin
gnome-bluetooth2.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided bluez-gnome

Well, if you Provide it, it's going to conflict with itself from the Conflicts. 

- final provides and requires are sane: - ***

-libs package requires the main package. Does it need to? (Seems odd that it
would require the applet.)

SHOULD Items:

- Should build in mock. - OK (tested x86_64)
- Should function as described. - didn't test
- Should have sane scriptlets. - ***

There's a new icon cache guideline - see 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Icon_Cache

- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. -
OK
- Should have dist tag - OK
- Should package latest version - OK

-- 
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.