Bug 472418

This package needs  xorg-x11-fonts-misc as requirement, otherwise it won't even start:
XmuttFontGrid: can't load the "6x10" font.


xmbdfed.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated
xmbdfed.desktop: warning: value "Application;Graphics;" for key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application"


In the %files section, please to use:
%defattr(-, root, root, -)

BTW this one may be a better option for packaging (didn't actually try any of them)

http://www.math.nmsu.edu/~mleisher/Software/gbdfed/

(In reply to comment #1)
> This package needs  xorg-x11-fonts-misc as requirement, otherwise it won't even
> start:
> XmuttFontGrid: can't load the "6x10" font.
> 
> 
> xmbdfed.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated
> xmbdfed.desktop: warning: value "Application;Graphics;" for key "Categories" in
> group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application"
> 
> 
> In the %files section, please to use:
> %defattr(-, root, root, -)

Thanks! All of these are fixed in -2:

New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/xmbdfed-4.7-2.fc11.src.rpm
New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/xmbdfed.spec

Review:

OK  source files match upstream:
        27872bb7473e5d64d9a24281ae6ad3d9  xmbdfed-4.7.tar.bz2
OK  package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK  specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK  summary is OK.
OK  description is OK.
OK  dist tag is present.
OK  build root is OK.
OK  license field matches the actual license.
OK  license is open source-compatible.
OK  license text included in package.
NOT OK  BuildRequires are proper.
OK  compiler flags are appropriate.
OK  %clean is present.
OK  package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
OK  package installs properly.
OK  debuginfo package looks complete.
OK  rpmlint is silent.
OK  final provides and requires are sane:
        xmbdfed = 4.7-2.fc11
        xmbdfed(x86-64) = 4.7-2.fc11
        =
        libICE.so.6()(64bit)
        libSM.so.6()(64bit)
        libX11.so.6()(64bit)
        libXext.so.6()(64bit)
        libXm.so.2()(64bit)
        libXmu.so.6()(64bit)
        libXpm.so.4()(64bit)
        libXt.so.6()(64bit)
        libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)
        xorg-x11-fonts-misc
OK  %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
    I was able to run the program fine after adding correct Requires
N/A no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK  owns the directories it creates.
OK  doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK  no duplicates in %files.
OK  file permissions are appropriate.
OK  code, not content.
OK  documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
OK  %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK  no headers.
OK  no pkgconfig files.
OK  no static libraries.
OK  no libtool .la files.
OK  desktop file present and correctly installed

Must:
- Please add desktop-file-utils as dependency (correctly installing desktop files)

Suggestions:
- Please consider preserving timestamps on installed files
- Please also keep the classical order of files for fedora spec files

APPROVED. (but please fix BR)

- Please also keep the classical order of files for fedora spec files

What do you mean by that?

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: xmbdfed
Short Description: Bitmap Font Editor
Owners: spot
Branches: EL-5 F-9 F-10 devel
InitialCC:

... and it's done.

(In reply to comment #2)
> BTW this one may be a better option for packaging (didn't actually try any of
> them)
> 
> http://www.math.nmsu.edu/~mleisher/Software/gbdfed/

Looks like the GTK version of this package. I'm willing to maintain them both:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475884

xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc9

xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc10

(In reply to comment #5)
> - Please also keep the classical order of files for fedora spec files
> 
> What do you mean by that?

what i meant was the usual order of fields in spec file

e.g. 
Name:
Version:
Release:
Summary:
Group:
License:
URL:
Source0:
BuildRoot:
BuildRequires:
Requires:

xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.