[Bug 773470] Review Request: muffin - Window and compositing manager based on Clutter

[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=773470

Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr at sylvestre.me> changed:

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

--- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr at sylvestre.me> 2012-02-04 10:44:19 EST ---
APPROVED. Changes look good.

* TODO Review [100%]
  - [X] Names [2/2]
    - [X] Package name
    - [X] Spec name
  - [X] Package version [2/2]
       
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
    - [X] Version number
          http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Version_Tag

          matches version in source code

    - [X] Release tag
          http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Release_Tag
         
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
  - [X] Meets
[[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines][guidelines]]
  - [X] Source files match upstream
    ✗ sha1sum muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz ../SOURCES/muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz
    e5095a17c3ced6ae08133930a77e0490d0d6e756  muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz
    e5095a17c3ced6ae08133930a77e0490d0d6e756  ../SOURCES/muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz
  - [X] [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries][No
bundled libraries]]
        I don't see any
  - [X] License [4/4]
    - [X] License is Fedora-approved
    - [X] No licensing conflict
    - [X] License field accurate
    - [X] License included iff packaged by upstream
  - [X] rpmlint [2/2]
    - [X] on src.rpm
      (filtering out bogus spelling errors)
      muffin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: muffin-1.0.0.tar.gz

      download URL does not have the name of the created file; just ignore
      the warning

    - [X] on x86_64.rpm
      (filtering out issues that are identical to SRPM)

      -debuginfo and -devel have many incorrect-fsf-address errors; this is
      harmless

      These are the real warnings;
      muffin.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libmuffin.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
      muffin.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/muffin.schemas
      muffin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
      muffin.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm

      The first two are also present in mutter; I'd ignore the first,
      and the second is a bit misleading as schemas are not really
      configuration files.

      The latter two are from the %gconf macros, so those are fine.
  - [X] Language & locale [3/3]
    - [X] Spec in US English
    - [X] Spec legible
    - [X] Use %find_lang to handle locale files
  - [X] Build [3/3]
    - [X] Koji results
      http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3762346
    - [X] BRs complete
    - [X] Directory ownership
  - [X] Spec inspection [8/8]
    - [X] ldconfig for libraries
    - [X] No duplicate files
    - [X] File permissions
    - [X] Filenames must be UTF-8
    - [X] no BuildRoot
([[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag][except if
targeting RHEL5]])
    - [X] Macro usage consistent
    - [X] Documentation [1/1]
      - [X] %doc files are non-essential
    - [X] Development [4/4]
      - [X] Headers in -devel
      - [X] If versioned .so's, unversioned in -devel
      - [X] -devel, -static requires main
      - [X] No .la
  - [X] Desktop file validation
  - [X]
[[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets][Scriptlets]] [1/1]
    - [X] GConf
      http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets#GConf

-- 
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.