Bug 197796

Summary: Review Request: glipper
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Damien Durand <splinux25>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Chitlesh GOORAH <chitlesh>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideKeywords: Reopened
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: 2007-01-03 00:35:17 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779    

Description Damien Durand 2006-07-06 13:50:10 UTC
Spec URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/glipper/glipper.spec
SRPM URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/glipper/glipper-0.89-1.src.rpm
Description: Glipper is a simple Clipboardmanager for the GNOME Desktop Environment

Comment 1 Damien Durand 2006-07-08 08:41:43 UTC
- Fixed mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs in changelog
- Added category Text and delete-original in desktop-file-install
- Added intltool as BR

Spec URL : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/glipper/glipper.spec
SRPMS URL : http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/glipper/glipper-0.89-2.src.rpm

Comment 2 Chitlesh GOORAH 2006-07-08 08:53:33 UTC
MUST Items:

- MUST: rpmlint's output is clean
- MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
- MUST: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}
- MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package is licensed (GPL) with an open-source compatible license and
meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: 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.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. 
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
- MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least i386.
- MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires.
- MUST: The spec file handles locales properly.
- MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the
dynamic linker's default paths
- MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable
- MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates.
- MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files are set properly.
- MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section
of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: The package contains code, or permissable content. This is described in
detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: There are no Large documentation files
- MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it
is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
- MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries 
- MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix 
- MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives
- MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and
that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install
section.
- MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 

SHOULD Items:

 - SHOULD: The source package does include license text(s) as COPYING
 - SHOULD: mock builds succcessfully in i386.
 - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
 - SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane. 
 - SHOULD: No subpackages present.

APPROVED

Comment 3 Christian Iseli 2007-01-03 00:34:04 UTC
Re-open to properly assign review.
Changed summary for tracking purposes.