Bug 275281

any reason for not using vendor_id as fedora?
from following link, you can see it suggests to use fedora as vendor_id.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-d559ee7363418a5840ce63090c608c991cd39ce6

I've always been following Red Dieter's idea of only adding a fedora vendor if
upstream doesn't provide a dekstop file at all, but I didn't realize this didn't
make it into the guidelines. Fixed.

Spec URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gimmage-0.2.3-2.fc8.src.rpm
SRPM URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gimmage.spec

(In reply to comment #2)
> I've always been following Red Dieter's idea of only adding a fedora vendor if
> upstream doesn't provide a dekstop file at all, but I didn't realize this didn't
> make it into the guidelines. Fixed.
> 
> Spec URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gimmage-0.2.3-2.fc8.src.rpm
> SRPM URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gimmage.spec
> 

thanks. But meanwhile I got some more information on desktop-files
check https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg01841.html
and
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg01857.html
now I as per current guidelines new updated SPEC looks correct. 

But mock build showed me that now same desktop files got installed twice.
Basically using vendor_id as fedora when upstream installs desktop file using
make file correctly you need to pass additional parameter --delete-original
so change desktop-file-install command look like as

desktop-file-install --vendor fedora \
    --delete-original                   \
    --dir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications  \
    $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop

Makes sense, missed it in the build log.

Spec URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gimmage-0.2.3-3.fc8.src.rpm
SRPM URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gimmage.spec

Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPMs.
+ source files match upstream.
f51cca53b3d33415e75a91cf81b6ac39  gimmage-0.2.3.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.
+ License text is included in package.
+ %doc is small so no need of -doc subpackage.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc files are present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ Desktop files installed correctly.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ update-desktop-database scriptlets used.
+ Package gimmage-0.2.3-3.fc8 ->
  Requires: libatk-1.0.so.0 libatkmm-1.6.so.1 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libcairo.so.2 libcairomm-1.0.so.1 libcurl.so.4 libdl.so.2
libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0
libgdkmm-2.4.so.1 libglib-2.0.so.0 libglibmm-2.4.so.1 libgmodule-2.0.so.0
libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgtkmm-2.4.so.1 libm.so.6
libmagic.so.1 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpangomm-1.4.so.1
libsigc-2.0.so.0 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4) rtld(GNU_HASH)
+ GUI App.
APPROVED.

Thanks for the review!

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: gimmage
Short Description: A Simple GNOME Image Viewer
Owners: denis
Branches: F-7
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.

is this built already? If yes then you can close this review request.