[Bug 467642] Review Request: sugar-read - PDF reader for Sugar

[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=467642


Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #17 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2009-03-04 10:10:34 EDT ---
APPROVED

+ rpmlint output

$ rpmlint -i /home/perobinson/rpmbuild/SRPMS/sugar-read-65-1.fc10.src.rpm
sugar-read.src: W: non-standard-group Sugar/Activities
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid.  Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  3a7c7cc764e139691a7f57c16cd6433c  Read-65.tar.bz2
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
+ %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin

-- 
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.