Bug 569038
| Summary: | Review Request: pinta - Simple painting for Gtk | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Sebastian Dziallas <sebastian> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dlesage, fedora-package-review, musuruan, notting, supercyper1 |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2010-05-06 11:38:58 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
Sebastian Dziallas
2010-02-27 18:46:31 UTC
Pinta 0.2 is available. Please update. Ayup, you're right! Thanks for the heads-up. Here's the updated package. Anybody up for a review? Spec URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/pinta.spec SRPM URL: http://sdz.fedorapeople.org/rpmbuild/pinta-0.2-1.fc12.src.rpm It seems the icons are taken from paintdotnet 3.0. In this case they are not an acceptable content for Fedora because they are licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND. Please read: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-February/msg00024.html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=497766 Please verify upstream if needed. Thanks for the heads-up! I inquired with upstream early when packaging it and upstream added a line saying "Pinta does not use the Paint.NET logo or icon mentioned above." back then. This is also the reason why I packaged originally a GIT checkout, instead of version 0.1 (which didn't contain this note). Here's the link to the file, which should be in 0.2 now: http://github.com/jpobst/Pinta/blob/master/license-pdn.txt *** Bug 578701 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Package do not work on 64 bits system. You are wrongly supposing that %{_libdir} is always /usr/lib.
From the Mono guidelines: "Mono installs binaries in %{_libdir}/<package>/bin with symlinks back to /usr/bin.". You didn't use %{_libdir}/<package>/bin but %{_libdir}/<package>.
Please use another name for the icon. Now you use applications-graphics.png and it is too generic and therefore it could conflict with other packages.
You should also add todo.txt to the docs.
You may also want to have a look at the Debian package for patches and other improvements (for example, the desktop file):
http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/pinta/0.2-1
Ping. Pinta 0.3 is out: http://pinta-project.com/release/0.3 Are you still interested in this review request? I've been rotating around here while working out some parts of 'life' as marked here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Vacation :) While I still think that Pinta is a cool application, I might not be able to continue to give it the attention it deserves. If somebody wants to package it, I'm willing to act as co-maintainer, though. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 590244 *** |