[Bug 465727] Review Request: obexd - D-Bus service for Obex Client access

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Oct 6 07:57:39 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=465727


Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com>  2008-10-06 03:57:37 EDT ---
As no updated SRPM is provided for reviewing, I am reviewing package given in
initial comment.

Review:
+ package builds in mock (rawhide i386).
koji build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=863059
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM. But NOT for RPM.
obexd.i386: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/obexd-0.5/send-files
obexd.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.5 1:0.5-1.fc10
obexd.i386: E: no-binary
obexd.i386: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/obexd-0.5/send-files
/usr/bin/python
==> Ok. Assuming you will fix these at time of CVS import.

+ source files match upstream.
614f14a2024d13af5a936345c086cdb7  obexd-0.5.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package
  ==> you can add manually GPLv2 COPYING in next upstream release.

+ %doc files present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ Compiler flags used correctly.
+ defattr usage is correct
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ no scriptlets are used.
+ Not a GUI app.

Suggestion:-
  1)Remove Epoch tag from SPEC
APPROVED.

-- 
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