[Bug 461402] Review Request: nted - Musical score editor

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461402





--- Comment #4 from Andreas Thienemann <andreas at bawue.net>  2008-09-07 07:47:25 EDT ---
OK: source files match upstream:
0d884dc48b21831dd1ba51fac82d15116bcea202abecdec9182b217f4152fb6e
OK: package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK: specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently.
OK: dist tag is present.
OK: build root is correct.
OK: license field matches the actual license.
OK: license is open source-compatible.
 GPLv2+ and GFDL
OK: latest version is being packaged.
OK: BuildRequires are proper.
OK: compiler flags are appropriate.
OK: %clean is present.
OK: package builds in mock.
OK: package installs properly.
OK: debuginfo package looks complete.
OK: rpmlint is silent.
OK: final provides and requires are sane:
Requires(rpmlib):
 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Requires:
 libasound.so.2()(64bit)
 libasound.so.2(ALSA_0.9)(64bit)
 libatk-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libc.so.6()(64bit)
 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit)
 libcairo.so.2()(64bit)
 libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit)
 libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgio-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgmodule-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libm.so.6()(64bit)
 libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libpangoft2-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides:
 nted = 1.0.7-1.fc10
 nted(x86-64) = 1.0.7-1.fc10
OK: no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK: owns the directories it creates.
OK: doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK: no duplicates in %files.
OK: file permissions are appropriate.
OK: no scriptlets present.
OK: code, not content.
OK: documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK: %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK: no headers.
OK: no pkgconfig files.
OK: no libtool .la droppings.
OK: desktop files valid and installed properly.

PASS: license text included in package.
Upstream is shipping the wrong COPYING file it seems. The file declares GPLv3+
while the header in each file claims GPLv2+. _NOT_ shipping the COPYING file
sounds acceptable.

Please fix the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT usage to be in consistent style with the usage
of %{name}-type variables.

%docdir usage is wrong, please fix.

As soon as that's done, package can be considered ACCEPT.

-- 
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.