Bug 225500

Don't you think that the first part of a description is almost identical
as the Possibilities of the program list? It just talks two times about the 
same.

Sure, will fix.

I'll review it.

REVIEW:
 * dist tag present
 * sources match upstream (8bd5c2f78e7b1a7ac7910de8b9420d93)
!* package is licensed under a GPL license *not* included in %doc 
!* rpmlint output:
/tmp/cycle-0.3.1-1.fc7.noarch.rpm.5098/usr/share/applications/fedora-
cycle.desktop: warning: The 'Application' category is not defined by the 
desktop entry specification.  Please use one of "AudioVideo", "Audio", "Video", 
"Development", "Education", "Game", "Graphics", "Network", "Office", 
"Settings", "System", "Utility" instead
/tmp/cycle-0.3.1-1.fc7.noarch.rpm.5098/usr/share/applications/fedora-
cycle.desktop: warning: Categories values must be one of "AudioVideo", "Audio", 
"Video", "Development", "Education", "Game", "Graphics", "Network", "Office", 
"Settings", "System", "Utility", "Building", "Debugger", "IDE", "GUIDesigner", 
"Profiling", "RevisionControl", "Translation", "Calendar", "ContactManagement", 
"Database", "Dictionary", "Chart", "Email", "Finance", "FlowChart", "PDA", 
"ProjectManagement", "Presentation", "Spreadsheet", "WordProcessor", 
"2DGraphics", "VectorGraphics", "RasterGraphics", "3DGraphics", "Scanning", 
"OCR", "Photography", "Viewer", "DesktopSettings", "HardwareSettings", 
"PackageManager", "Dialup", "InstantMessaging", "IRCClient", "FileTransfer", 
"HamRadio", "News", "P2P", "RemoteAccess", "Telephony", "WebBrowser", 
"WebDevelopment", "Midi", "Mixer", "Sequencer", "Tuner", "TV", 
"AudioVideoEditing", "Player", "Recorder", "DiscBurning", "ActionGame", 
"AdventureGame", "ArcadeGame", "BoardGame", "BlocksGame", "CardGame", 
"KidsGame", "LogicGame", "RolePlaying", "Simulation", "SportsGame", 
"StrategyGame", "Art", "Construction", "Music", "Languages", "Science", 
"Astronomy", "Biology", "Chemistry", "Geology", "Math", "MedicalSoftware", 
"Physics", "Amusement", "Archiving", "Electronics", "Emulator", "Engineering", 
"FileManager", "TerminalEmulator", "Filesystem", "Monitor", "Security", 
"Accessibility", "Calculator", "Clock", "TextEditor", "Core", "KDE", "GNOME", 
"GTK", "Qt", "Motif", "Java", "ConsoleOnly", "Screensaver", "TrayIcon", 
"Applet", "Shell" (found "Utilities")
Application and Utilities categories are now deprecated. Use one of listed 
above instead.

 * latest version is being packaged
 * mock builds fine, however there are gettext dependency listed two times; 
also I would recommend to use python-devel rather than python BR
 * requires and provides:
cycle-0.3.1-1.fc7.noarch.rpm
cycle = 0.3.1-1.fc7
=
/usr/bin/env
python >= 2.3
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
wxPython

cycle-0.3.1-1.fc7.src.rpm
(none)=
gettext
desktop-file-utils
python >= 2.3
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1

 * package isn't designed to be relocatable
 * package owns all directories well
 * %clean section is present and looks good
 * build root's fine
 * no objections to %files section
 * no scriptlets required
 * no need to any subpackages
 * no .la files
!* gui application, but .desktop file looks bad: wrong categories and X-Fedora 
argument to desktop-file-install ought to be removed as well. Also it refers to 
not existing /usr/share/icons/cycle.xpm path.

There are two identical files: README.Debian and README.Fedora - seems that we 
can get rid of the first one,
README doesn't also look like a helpful file. On the other hand, you forgot to 
include CHANGELOG, COPYRIGHT and THANKS files.
There's man file available, so there's no reason not to include it in package
This is not in fact a blocker but your %install section doesn't look clear. I'd 
like to see it more legible.

THINGS TO DO:
 * change categories in .desktop file
 * correct Icon path in .desktop
 * get rid of one gettext BR
 * change python BR to python-devel (AFAIK it is safer)
 * remove --add-category=X-Fedora \ from desktop-file-install (we should use an 
X-Fedora category no longer)
 * change (shorten) %description of a package
 * add CHANGELOG, COPYRIGHT and THANKS to %doc
 * remove README.Debian file
 * include cycle.1 file
 * make %install more legible

Updated. New URLs:

Spec URL: http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/cycle.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/cycle-0.3.1-2.src.rpm

rpmlint is still not quiet:
/tmp/cycle-0.3.1-2.fc7.noarch.rpm.10444/usr/share/applications/fedora-
cycle.desktop: warning: The 'Application' category is not defined by the 
desktop entry specification.  Please use one of "AudioVideo", "Audio", "Video", 
"Development", "Education", "Game", "Graphics", "Network", "Office", 
"Settings", "System", "Utility" instead

Just get rid of 'Application' category because it is deprecated now.
Also, a few things I haven't noticed before:
 * you don't need to pass python dependency, because wxPython already requires
it; so just leave Requires with only wxPython
 * it's surely not Applications/Multimedia. After a short talk at #fedora-extras
I suggest to use Applications/Productivity category (other calendars are put
there)
 * don't gzip man page by hand - rpm does it automatically

Updated. I have also consulted .spec from the tarball, and although I haven't
accepted everything, I made a small changes to my spec accordingly.

New URL of SRPM: http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/progs/rpms/cycle-0.3.1-3.src.rpm

Looks fine now.
Approved.

Resetting fedora-review flag to BLANK since this is not part of the Core-Extras Merge review

What is the status of this review request?
Currently this is assigned to nobody...

(In reply to comment #10)
> What is the status of this review request?
> Currently this is assigned to nobody...

Hmm, odd... I have approved this package and it ought to be closed as well,
because package exists in repo.

Matej, please close this ticket.

Not yet, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure?action=show&redirect=CVSAdminProcedure
for the proper procedure:

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: cycle
Short Description: Calendar program for women
Owners: mcepl
Branches: FC-5 FC-6
InitialCC: 

Moreover, I am not sure, whether the package is really built in -devel --
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/owners/owners.list?root=extras&view=markup
doesn't show it