Bug 447766
| Summary: | Review Request: mathomatic - Small, portable symbolic math program | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Terje Røsten <terje.rosten> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michel Lind <michel> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | chitlesh, fedora-package-review, kevin, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | michel:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-06-09 18:51:52 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: | |||
|
Description
Terje Røsten
2008-05-21 17:58:48 UTC
Looks good so far; could you update to 14.0.4 and then I can do a full review? Thanks. > Looks good so far; could you update to 14.0.4 and then I can do a full review? Sure: spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/mathomatic/mathomatic.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/mathomatic/mathomatic-14.0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm Only one small problem: desktop-file-install is used without a vendor tag. Could you make it desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora" ... ? (the exception is for packages that have their own vendor tags, e.g. KDE, GNOME, XFCE) APPROVED • rpmlint: clean • package name: ok • spec file name: ok • package guideline-compliant: ok • license complies with guidelines: ok • license field accurate: ok • license file not deleted: ok • spec in US English: ok • spec legible: ok • source matches upstream: ok • builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: ok • build dependencies complete: ok • own all directories: ok • no dupes in %files: ok • permission: ok • %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT: ok • macros used consistently: ok • Package contains code: ok • large docs => -doc: small enough • desktop file uses desktop-file-install: ok -- note: vendor tag missing • clean buildroot before install: ok • filenames UTF-8: ok SHOULD • desc and summary contain translations if available • package build in mock on all architectures: none • package functioned as described: ok • scriplets are sane: ok (see note on vendor tag) • other subpackages should require versioned base: ok (though in this case it seems functionally independent) • require package not files: ok Actually we're trying to reword the guideline about --vendor so that it's clear just what's supposed to be done with it. It seems that --vendor=fedora is rarely the right thing to do. Check the discussion starting here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20080603#t12:15 > Only one small problem: desktop-file-install is used without a vendor tag. > Could you make it desktop-file-install --vendor="fedora" ... ? Will have a look, thanks for comments tibbs. > APPROVED Thanks for the review. (fedora-review flag should be changed?) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mathomatic Short Description: Small, portable symbolic math program Owners: terjeros Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes Michel: Can you set the fedora-review flag? Just want to make sure all is approved from your end. Ah yes, sorry. thanks. cvs done. Thanks guys, package built and pending for testing. |