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: rosegarden4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-12 22:12 EST ------- I don't have the "fedorabugs" membership yet, so this I can't approve yet, but here's my formal review anyways... * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: md5sum is e7fb7ebcb21ac6841ac5cfd6683f5fb2 * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock ( ). * rpmlint is silent apart from empty file complaints which we've discussed in bugzilla. Those will be fixed upstream. * final provides and requires are sane: rosegarden4-1.2.3-2.x86_64.rpm rosegarden4 = 1.2.3-2 = /bin/sh /usr/bin/perl desktop-file-utils libDCOP.so.4()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXft.so.2()(64bit) libXrender.so.1()(64bit) libasound.so.2()(64bit) libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libjack.so.0()(64bit) libkdecore.so.4()(64bit) libkdeprint.so.4()(64bit) libkdeui.so.4()(64bit) libkio.so.4()(64bit) liblirc_client.so.0()(64bit) liblo.so.0()(64bit) liblrdf.so.2()(64bit) libqt-mt.so.3()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) perl(File::Basename) perl(File::Copy) perl(Getopt::Long) perl(XML::Twig) perl(strict) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a web app. I would approve this if I had "fedorabugs" membership (which I've requested). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
