[Bug 499993] Review Request: dvtm - Tiling window management for the console

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun May 10 19:49:41 UTC 2009


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=499993





--- Comment #2 from Jochen Schmitt <jochen at herr-schmitt.de>  2009-05-10 15:49:40 EDT ---
Good:
+ Basename of the SPECE file matches with upstream
+ Package fullfit naming guidelines
+ URL tag show on proper project home page
+ Package contains most recent version of the application
+ Could download upstream tar ball with spectool -g
+ Tar ball in packages matches with upstream 
(md5sum: 15af44198d6a636190480122b8de7155)
+ Package contains valid license tag
+ License tag has LGPLV2+ and MIT as valid OSS Licenses
+ Package contains verbatin copy of the MIT license text
+ Consistently usage of rpm macros
+ Proper Buildroot definition
+ Buildroot will be cleaned on beginning of %clean and %install
+ Inclused patch is reliable
+ Local build works fine
+ Pacmage support SMP build
+ Rpmlint is quite for source rpm
+ Rpmlint is quite for binary rpm
+ Rpmlint is quite for Debuginfo rpm
+ Koji build works fine
+ Local install and uninstall works fine
+ Start of the application works fine.
+ Files has proper files perrmisions
+ %files stanza contains no duplicates
+ Package contains no files which belong to ohter packages
+ All packaged files are own by this package
+ %doc stanza is small, so no extra doc subpackage is needed
+ Package contains proper %Changelog

Bad:
- Wrong RPM Group. I think the aim of the application is not to
  emulate an other OS or system.
- Sources contains no copyright notes. Please notify upstream
  to fix this issue.
- Package only contains verbatin license text for the MIT license
- Debuginfo package contains no sources
- Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS

-- 
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