Spec URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gimmage-0.2.3-1.fc8.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://www.poolshark.org/src/gimmage.spec Description: Gimmage is a simple GNOME image viewer that aims to have a minimalist interface and tries to be keyboard operable for browsing through a large number of images quickly.
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.