[Bug 222998] Review Request: iDesk - Desktop icons and background for minimal WMs

[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: iDesk - Desktop icons and background for minimal WMs


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222998





------- Additional Comments From fedora at christoph-wickert.de  2007-01-20 12:32 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> idesk would only work if the user puts an .idesktoprc in his home. But I don't 
> know how to put this in the spec.

This is something we can not do with rpm. Look at your devilspie package:
Without a custom config the program is pretty much useless, too. 

All we can do is include as much information in %doc as possible. Sample files,
possibly a README.Fedora, but I don't think it's really necessary in this case,
the message  "Error: you have to create the .idesktop dir on your HOME!!" is
clear enough.


(In reply to comment #1)
> ... The description is taken from the upstream owner. 
> I'll re-phrase it in -2.

Yeah. I suggest removing the note regarding svg support, since it was removed in
0.6.

Review for
e958b9f882c088c15ad7ce5390f54664  idesk-0.7.5-1.src.rpm

OK - rpmlint silent
OK - package and spec named according to the package naming guidelines
FIX - package meets packaging guidelines, but specfile needs some tweaking:
- Group: tag "Development/Debuggers" is definitely wrong (this is what Sebastian
meant in with "strange group" in comment #3). I suggest "User
Interface/Desktops" or "User Interface/X". BTW: For comps.xml I suggest "X
Window System" or "Window Managers".
- Change URL: to http://idesk.sourceforge.net, this is more save if upstream
will change their website.
- Change Source0 to
http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
instead of heanet mirror.
- insert line wraps after max 79 characters when you rewrite %description
OK - license is open-source compatible (BSD)
FIX - license field in spec file doesn't match actual license: the included
COPYING is a BSD license, but spec file says it's GPL.
OK - COPYING included in source and correctly installed in %doc
OK - spec is in American English
OK - spec is legible
OK - source in srpm matches upstream by md5
beb48c97815c7b085e3b3d601297fbb8
OK - package compiles and build into binaries on Core 6 i386
OK - no known ExcludeArchs
FIX - BuildRequires: should have libSM-devel (./configure checks libICE and libSM)
OK - no locales to worry about
OK - no shared libs to worry about
OK - package is not relocatable
OK - package owns all directories it creates
OK - no duplicates in %files
OK - file permissions and %defattr correct
OK - valid clean section
OK - macro usage consistent
OK - code, not content
OK - no large docs
OK - docs don't affect runtime
OK - no header files, static libs or *.pc files
OK - no libtool archives
OK - no desktop file needed
OK - package doesn't own directories already owned by other files
OK - builds in mock (devel)
OK - works as described

NEEDSWORK

-- 
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.