[Bug 460253] Review Request: qle - A QSO Logger and log Editor
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Nov 20 19:50:53 UTC 2008
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460253
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2008-11-20 14:50:52 EDT ---
This one builds, and is rather simple.
I guess it might be nice to define QSO somewhere in your %description. I guess
it makes sense to those who already know what it means, but it means nothing to
me.
This package should own /etc/qle
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
2e948b64233ded37b80a3e77009f1006bce40428f857a01792f3dd2385a7edb3
qle-0.0.10.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK (maybe define QSO)
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
config(qle) = 0.0.10-2.fc10
qle = 0.0.10-2.fc10
=
/bin/bash
/usr/bin/perl
config(qle) = 0.0.10-2.fc10
cwdaemon
hamlib-perl
perl
perl(Config::General)
perl(DBD::SQLite)
perl(DBI)
perl(English)
perl(File::Basename)
perl(IO::Socket)
perl(Tk)
perl(Tk::After)
perl(Tk::Bitmap)
perl(Tk::ErrorDialog)
perl(Tk::ItemStyle)
perl(strict)
perl(warnings)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream. It seems to work when I run
it, although I've no idea how to do anything.
X fails to own /erc/qle
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* desktop files valid and installed properly.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list