[Bug 178901] Review Request: gtksourceview-sharp

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jul 20 03:04:49 UTC 2006


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: gtksourceview-sharp


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178901





------- Additional Comments From jpmahowald at gmail.com  2006-07-19 22:56 EST -------
That patch to autoconf and automake should go upstream if %(libdir) is the
accepted place to drop this.

- rpmlint checks return:
W: gtksourceview-sharp strange-permission gtksourceview-sharp-libdir.patch 0666
W: gtksourceview-sharp strange-permission gtksourceview-sharp.spec 0666
Ignorable, I'm not scared of 666.

W: gtksourceview-sharp incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0-0.10-12 2.0-12.fc6
Confusion due to the 2.0-0.10 naming in the tarball. Should be fine as long as
the release is always bumped if that extra version number is updated, to say
2.0-0.11.

E: gtksourceview-sharp no-binary
E: gtksourceview-sharp only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Expected for mono.

W: gtksourceview-sharp-devel no-documentation
Fine.


- package meets naming guidelines
Just watch out for that version.
- package meets packaging guidelines
BLOCKER - license is wrong, is LGPL.
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR (hopefully autoconf and automake will go away sometime)
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file

- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r 

For mono specific stuff the build does call gacutil like the guidelines say.

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list