Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: linuxdcpp - Direct Connect client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=234331
jochen@herr-schmitt.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(mgarski@post.pl)
------- Additional Comments From jochen@herr-schmitt.de 2007-10-11 12:47 EST ------- Good: + Mock build for Devel and F-7 works fine (x86_64, ppc64) + Package meets naming and packaging guideline + Spec file matches with package base name + Spec file have consistant macro ussage + Version is GPLv2 + Spec is in English + Spec is legible + Tarball matches with upstream (md5sum: 33c3b0ae46772dec3142e35c30401a27) + Package has correct buildroot + Package has no redundant BuildRequires + Package has no sub packages + Local build works fine. + Package has %defattr and proper permissions + Package has a proper %clean section + Buildroot will be cleaned on the beginning of the %install section + %doc file don't affect runtime + Package contains no duplicated files + Package doesn't own file from other packages + %changeLog section is correct. + Locdl install and uninstall works fine. + Application has proper menue item + Application started without a crash + Rpmlint don't complaints the binary and debuginfo rpm
Bad: - License Tag says GPLv2+ - Duplicate BuildRequires: pkgconfig (by gtk2-devel), glib2-devel (by gtk2-devel), gtk2-devel (by libglade2-devel), zlib-devel (by openssl-devel) - Rpmlint complaints on source rpm: $ rpmlint linuxdcpp-1.0.0-1.fc7.src.rpm linuxdcpp.src:25: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build FAKE_ROOT="$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"