Bug 1009054 (appdata-tools)

Summary: Review Request: appdata-tools - Tools for AppData files
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Richard Hughes <rhughes>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora, i, mclasen, rhughes
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-01-03 02:04:11 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Richard Hughes 2013-09-17 14:54:07 UTC 
Spec URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/appdata-tools.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/appdata-tools-0.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5945327
Description: Tools for AppData files
Fedora Account System Username: rhughes

$ rpmlint */appdata*.*
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Note: This is an upstream project designed and package because Fedora and upstream contributors wanted a way to validate the appdata files installed for gnome-software, which is a technical preview in F20. This package only has the appdata-validate command at the moment but in the next version will also do useful things like install the its file for translation and the RELAX NG schema.
Comment 1 Remi Collet 2013-09-29 08:24:14 UTC 
Is this review needed ?
I saw that the package is already in the repository for F >= 19.
Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2014-01-03 02:04:11 UTC 
(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #1)
> Is this review needed ?
> I saw that the package is already in the repository for F >= 19.

Of ocurse not.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1009059 ***