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: tktreectrl - flexible listbox widget for Tk https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217806 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| | Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-21 12:33 EST ------- This has been sitting for ages. I'll take a look. I note that 2.2.3 is out. The resulting package doesn't end up with any kind of dependency on tcl or tk. I'm not really sure if it should. There is some sort of test suite present. I have no idea whether it could be run automatically. I know essentially nothing about tcl so I don't even know how to do manual testing. Review: * source files match upstream: 5acb3ce3fd098383a10cb5f03531e625ddf342944d2a91560c9bbeb68b560c9a tktreectrl-2.2.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. X latest version is not being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. ? final provides and requires missing dependency on tk? libtreectrl2.2.so()(64bit) tktreectrl = 2.2.1-1.fc8 = libX11.so.6()(64bit) ? %check is not present. There's some sort of test suite present; I have no idea whether it could be run in mock. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets 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 static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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
