[Bug 853775] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit

2013-02-20 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775

Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
  Flags|needinfo?(alexisis-pristont |
   |a...@hotmail.com)|
Last Closed||2013-02-21 00:25:08

--- Comment #5 from Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 913367 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LbjebvrXlDa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853775] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit

2013-02-13 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775

Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||l...@fedoraproject.org

--- Comment #4 from Luya Tshimbalanga l...@fedoraproject.org ---
Hello, I have contacted last Friday the reviewee for status update of the
package because Design Team is looking to using this application. If not
available, I would like to open a new bug report for this package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nxra7mzEuOa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853775] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit

2012-12-26 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775

--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com ---
 Requires(postun):gtk2
 Requires(posttrans): gtk2

 Requires(post):  desktop-file-utils
 Requires(postun):desktop-file-utils

The RPM scriptlet sections and/or dependencies are out-of-date. Note the
section explaining that no dependency ought to be added. Also one reason why
|| : is used.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e4Ypu8APzpa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853775] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit

2012-11-27 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775

--- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Added NEEDINFO

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853775] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit

2012-11-26 Thread bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775

Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?
  Flags||needinfo?(alexisis-pristont
   ||a...@hotmail.com)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853775] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit

2012-09-29 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775

Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||volke...@gmx.at
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 853775] Review Request: gpick - Advanced color picker written in C++ using GTK+ toolkit

2012-09-29 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853775

--- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
Apparently gpick is built twice here: In %build and in %install. Can you
avoid that?

The files section is usually located immediately before the changelog.

There are a couple of compiler warnings upstream should consider:
- cast to pointer from integer of different size
- comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions
- passing NULL to non-pointer argument

Make it 1* instead of 1.* for the manpage.

Please remove the version constraint on BR gtk2-devel. Every release of
Fedora has a version newer than that.

Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



 C/C++ 
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.


 Generic 
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
 least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm  4.4
 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[-]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if
 there is such a file.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.

Doesn't seem to build on PPC:
http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=721046name=build.log

[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %doc.

installer/License.txt

[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
 BSD (3 clause) For detailed output of licensecheck see file:
 /media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/853775-gpick/licensecheck.txt
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
 Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
 Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD