[Bug 204598] Review Request: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: geda-gschem - Electronics schematics editor


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204598





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2006-08-31 11:48 EST -------
First review of geda-gschem :

1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines :

   * Naming
     - Maybe http://www.geda.seul.org/tools/gschem/index.html is more
     suitable for URL .

   * Use rpmlint
     -
     E: geda-gschem devel-dependency libgeda-devel
     E: geda-gschem explicit-lib-dependency libgeda-devel
     E: geda-gschem explicit-lib-dependency libstroke-devel
     Please explain why this package (geda-gschem) should
     depend on libstroke-devel and libgeda-devel.

   * BuildRequires:
     - gtk2-devel, guile-devel, gd-devel
                            <- required by libgeda-devel
     - gettext-devel ... is this really required?
     - mesa-libGL-devel ... also, is this really required?
       .... by my mock build, gettext-devel and 
            mesa-libGL-devel seems unnecessary.

   * Encoding
     - /usr/share/doc/geda-gschem-20060123/AUTHORS is encoded in
     ISO-8859-1 and includes non-ascii character(s). Change the
     encoding to UTF-8.

   * Desktop files
     - Well, according to 
     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets ,
     update-desktop-database seems to be needed when desktop
     file includes mimetype key.

   * Using %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs 
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
     - Mixed use is found. Please unify the usage.

   * Timestamps
     - Well, this package have many text files and xpm files
       so keeping timestamps is desirable.
       Again, try to keep timestamps (does this package accept
       'make INSTALL="install -p" install' ?)

   * File and Directory Ownership
     Umm... this is somewhat complicated..... Please recheck
     the owning issue of directories.

     - the directory %{_datadir}/gEDA/bitmap is owned by
       both geda-gsymcheck and geda-gschem.
       - geda-gsymcheck has only the directory and does not have
         any files under the directory. 
         So the entry  %dir %{_datadir}/gEDA/bitmap can be 
         removed from geda-gsymcheck.
       - Or, if the trick written above is not desirable, the
         owner of  %dir %{_datadir}/gEDA/bitma  should be
         geda-symbols as both geda-gsymcheck and geda-gschem
         requires geda-symbols.

2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :
   = Nothing.

3. Other things I have noticed:
   = Nothing.


-- 
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.