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=615153
--- Comment #4 from Germán Racca <gracca(a)gmail.com> 2010-07-17 00:47:22 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Hello Ankur:
First of all many thanks for the full review! :-)
Issues:
1. License is unclear. You'd probably be better off contacting upstream to
choose one of the two.
Actually, tint2[1] and tintwizard[2] are different projects with different
owners, although they are related, and this could be the reason that tint2 also
ships tintwizard. Maybe I must package them separately?
[
1]http://code.google.com/p/tint2/
[
2]http://code.google.com/p/tintwizard/
2.rpmlint output:
[Ankur@localhost rpmbuild]$ rpmlint SPECS/tint2.spec
SRPMS/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result/*.rpm
tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom
tint2.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom
tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py
tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tint2conf
tint2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttm -> tam, atm, tom
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
I wonder why it refers to tintwizard.py as a binary. Please check this?
Because it is in /usr/bin and has executable permission?
$ rpmlint -i RPMS/i686/tint2-0.11-1.fc13.i686.rpm
...
tint2.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tintwizard.py
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
...
Cheers,
Germán.
--
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.