Bug 499214
Summary: | Review Request: gcolor2 - A simple color selector for GTK+2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Fabian Affolter <mail> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, mail, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mail:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 0.4-1.fc10 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-05-19 02:01:07 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
Christoph Wickert
2009-05-05 16:05:50 UTC
Package Review ============== Package: Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary RPMs on at least one supported architecture Tested on: F10/i386 [x] Rpmlint output: Source RPM: [fab@laptop24 SRPMS]$ rpmlint gcolor2-0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Binary RPM(s): [fab@laptop24 i386]$ rpmlint gcolor2* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x] Package is not relocatable [x] Buildroot is correct master : %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) spec file: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license License type: GPLv2 [x] If (and only if) 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 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL Upstream source: 223a126b8a87234d1552be4be4140789 Build source: 223a126b8a87234d1552be4be4140789 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [-] Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. %find_lang used for locales [x] %{optflags} or RPM_OPT_FLAGS are honoured [x] No pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable) [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required [x] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x] Package must own all directories that it creates [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files [x] Permissions on files are set properly. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x] Package consistently uses macros [x] Package contains code, or permissable content [x] Included filenames are in UTF-8 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required [-] Header files (.h) in -devel subpackage, if present [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackage, if present [-] Static libraries (.a) in -static subpackage, if present [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present [-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x] -debuginfo subpackage is present and looks complete [x] Package contains a properly installed .desktop file if it is a GUI application [x] Follows desktop entry spec [x] Valid .desktop Name [x] Valid .desktop GenericName [x] Valid .desktop Categories [-] Valid .desktop StartupNotify [x] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Timestamps preserved with cp and install [x] Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags}) [x] Latest version is packaged [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock Tested on: F10/i386 [x] Package should compile and build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures. Tested: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1339014 [x] Package functions as described [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct [-] File based requires are sane [x] Changelog in allowed format I see no further blocker, package APPROVED Thanks for reviewing! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gcolor2 Short Description: Simple color selector for GTK+2 Owners: cwickert Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC: cvs done. gcolor2-0.4-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gcolor2-0.4-1.fc11 gcolor2-0.4-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gcolor2-0.4-1.fc10 gcolor2-0.4-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gcolor2-0.4-1.fc9 gcolor2-0.4-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update gcolor2'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-4686 gcolor2-0.4-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gcolor2'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-4759 gcolor2-0.4-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gcolor2'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-4785 gcolor2-0.4-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gcolor2-0.4-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gcolor2-0.4-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |