[Bug 451280] Review Request: xqf - A server browser for many popular games

[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: xqf - A server browser for many popular games


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451280


mlichvar at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From mlichvar at redhat.com  2008-07-05 14:02 EST -------
Approved.

- rpmlint is silent
- the package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
- the spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- the package meets the Packaging Guidelines
- the package is licensed with a Fedora approved license (GPLv2+)
- the License field in the package spec file matches the actual license
- the package includes the text of the license in %doc
- the spec file is written in American English
- the spec file for the package is legible
- the sources used to build the package matches the upstream source
(a88cecba6abb6349107ab135f1009946)
- the package successfully builds in x86_64 rawhide
- all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
- the spec file handles locales properly
- the package owns all directories that it creates
- the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing
- permissions on files are set properly
- the package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- the package consistently uses macros
- the package contains code, or permissible content
- files included as %doc don't affect the runtime of the application
- desktop file is installed with desktop-file-install
- the package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages
- at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- all filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8
- the package builds in mock
- the package functions as described
- scriptlets are sane


Few minor points, but not blockers:

- it's not necessary to buildrequire glibc-devel, it's already required by gcc
- it's probably better to call desktop-file-install after the upstream desktop
file is removed, to avoid removing the installed file in case they both have the
same name
- maybe it would be better to patch the upstream desktop file instead of
creating new one from scratch to keep the translated comments?


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.