[Bug 485580] Review Request: netactview - Graphical network connections viewer for Linux

[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=485580


manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro>  2009-02-15 01:35:51 EDT ---
The desktop files needs a couple of cosmetic fixes, because the Categories tag
should not contain X-Fedora and Application any more. Therefore please drop 
  --add-category X-Fedora 
and add instead
   --remove-category=Application

Bonus points for adding 
 chmod -x src/*{h,c)
thus silencing rpmlint when looking at the debuginfo file:
rpmlint of netactview-debuginfo:
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/main.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/net.h
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/net.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/mainwindow.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/process.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/utils.c
netactview-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/src/debug/netactview-0.4.1/src/process.h


For the moment you have duplicate BuildRequires: pkgconfig (by glib-devel),
gnome-vfs2-devel (by libgnome-devel) and glib-devel (by gtk+-devel). This is
purely cosmetic and I will not complain if you want to keep it as it is.

 And last but not last, I have contacted the author in private and asked him to
include license info in all the source files.


Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPM:empty
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type per spec: GPLv2+
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: af60909095f5150e70fdec778cfdcb3edf1438b5
netactview-0.4.1.tar.bz2
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [!] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
=>see preamble
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] Final provides and requires are sane.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64, F10/i386
 [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [x] %check is present and the test passes.

Fix the issues mentioned in Preamble (notably the desktop) and I will gladly
approve the package.

-- 
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.