[Bug 467421] Review Request: mingw32-gtk-vnc - MinGW Windows port of VNC client GTK widget

[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=467421


Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(rjones at redhat.com
                   |                            |)




--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan at gmail.com>  2009-02-03 19:02:42 EDT ---
Note: SRPM URL no longer valid, and the Source0 field does not provide a URL;
I'm reviewing the slightly modified spec, using the newest gtk-vnc release.

It looks like all patches can be dropped; I only have several things to
clarify. Most of them are listed below, but also this:

Documentation: the guideline specifies that man and info pages can be left out
if they duplicate the pages in the main Fedora package. But how about license
texts, README, ChangeLog, etc. -- the files that normally go under %doc ?

Updated spec attached.

MUST:

+ rpmlint: clean (but no documentation)
+ package name 
+ spec file name
+ package guideline-compliant
+ license complies with guidelines
+ license field accurate

- license file not deleted

+ spec in US English
+ spec legible

- source matches upstream

+ builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded
+ build dependencies complete

N/A locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale

?   library -> ldconfig (this is not needed for MinGW, I suppose?)

N/A relocatable: give reason

+ own all directories
+ no dupes in %files
+ permission
+ %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ macros used consistently
+ Package contains code

N/A large docs => -doc
N/A doc not runtime dependent

?   headers in -devel: presumably all mingw32- packages are meant for
    cross-compiling, so this is irrelevant?
N/A static in -static

+   if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig
?   if libfiles are suffixed, the non-suffixed goes to devel
?   devel requires versioned base package

N/A desktop file uses desktop-file-install
N/A clean buildroot before install
+   filenames UTF-8

SHOULD
N/A if license text missing, ask upstream to include it
-   desc and summary contain translations if available
?   package build in mock on all architectures
    Not tested -- not all dependencies in Fedora yet, thus no Koji
+   package functioned as described
+   scriplets are sane
N/A other subpackages should require versioned base
+   if main pkg is development-wise, pkgconfig can go in main package
+   require package not files

-- 
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.