[Bug 568386] Merge(?) Review: system-config-date

[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=568386

--- Comment #1 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp at redhat.com> 2010-02-25 11:22:19 EST ---
This was obviously missed in the round of merge reviews when they were done.

The URL is rather this one:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc//devel/system-config-date/

Anyway:

- PASSED: rpmlint:

nils at gibraltar:~/devel/fedora-review/system-config-date> rpmlint 
system-config-date-1.9.53-1.fc13.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
nils at gibraltar:~/devel/fedora-review/system-config-date> rpmlint 
system-config-date-1.9.53-1.fc13.noarch.rpm 
system-config-date.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libselinux-python
system-config-date.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided timetool
system-config-date.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dateconfig
system-config-date.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided timeconfig
system-config-date.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-date
system-config-date.noarch: W: no-dependency-on usermode
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.

  - libselinux-python is really the python module of libselinux, this error is
bogus
  - these obsoletes are really long in the tooth and should go
  - the tool should be converted to using dbus/PolicyKit instead of usermode

- GOOD: the package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
- GOOD: the spec file is named correctly
- GOOD: the package is licensed properly, meets Licensing Guidelines
- GOOD: License: field matches actual license
- GOOD: license text included in %doc
- GOOD: spec file written in American English
- GOOD: spec file is legible
- GOOD: sources used to build match upstream
- GOOD: package compiles successfully (numerous times in koji)
- GOOD: all build dependencies listed
- GOOD: spec file handles locales properly
- N/A: doesn't store shared library files
- GOOD: doesn't bundle system libraries
- N/A: package not relocatable
- GOOD: owns all directories it creates or depends on packages that do so
- BAD: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings:

%{_datadir}/system-config-date
[...]
%{_datadir}/system-config-date/pixmaps/system-config-date.png

- GOOD: file permissions set properly, %defattr present
- GOOD: package has %clean
- GOOD: uses macros consistently
- GOOD: package contains code
- GOOD: large online help is in (already reviewed) system-config-date-docs
- GOOD: %doc doesn't affect runtime
- N/A: no header files
- N/A: no static libs
- N/A: no pkgconfig files
- N/A: no library files
- N/A: no devel package
- GOOD: doesn't contain libtool archives
- GOOD: contains *.desktop file which is installed properly
- GOOD: package doesn't own files already owned by other packages
- GOOD: buildroot is cleaned in %install
- GOOD: all filenames are valid UTF-8

--> duplicate file listing needs to be fixed

-- 
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.