Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/gnome-packagekit.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/gnome-packagekit-0.1.0-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: packagekit-gnome provides session applications for the PackageKit API. There are several utilities designed for installing, updating and removing packages on your system. This requires PackageKit: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=333451
Setting PackageKit bug dependency.
Preliminary review => 1)I will suggest to have this package named as gnome-PackageKit. 2) Use of make should be as given in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-525c7d76890cb22df33b759c65c35c82bf434d2e 3) defattr should be defattr(-,root,root,-) 4) Remove following line from SPEC from %files section %{_datadir}/gnome-packagekit/pk-*.glade 5)You should install all .desktop files as given in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755
Thanks again for the nice review: 1) Nope. The upstream tarball is named gnome-packagekit, and in the absence of any guidelines or consistancy for naming gnome addons, I'd rather just match the upstream tarball. 2) Oops...fixed. 3) Fixed 4) Fixed 5) Fixed Also, fixed the License tag: GPLv2+ http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/gnome-packagekit.spec http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/gnome-packagekit-0.1.0-2.fc8.src.rpm
Package looks ok. waiting for PackageKit updates now.
Here are new packages to go with the new upstream version: http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/gnome-packagekit.spec http://people.redhat.com/rnorwood/rpms/gnome-packagekit-0.1.1-1.fc8.src.rpm
Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM. + source files match upstream. dfd4118a5980bac647660491fcc3698a gnome-packagekit-0.1.1.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. + Compiler flags are honoured correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code. + 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. + file permissions are appropriate. + scrollkeeper, Gconf, update-dekstop-database, update-gtk-icon-cache scriptlets are used. + package gnome-packagekit-0.1.1-1.fc8 -> Provides: config(gnome-packagekit) = 0.1.1-1.fc8 Requires: config(gnome-packagekit) = 0.1.1-1.fc8 dbus-glib >= 0.61 dbus-x11 >= 0.61 gnome-icon-theme gtk2 >= 2.10.0 libORBit-2.so.0 libatk-1.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libcairo.so.2 libdbus-1.so.3 libdbus-glib-1.so.2 libdl.so.2 libgconf-2.so.4 libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libglade-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgthread-2.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 libnotify >= 0.4.3 libnotify.so.1 libpackagekit.so.2 libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libxml2.so.2 rtld(GNU_HASH) + GUI app. APPROVED.
Huh. I guess I missed that this was approved several days ago. Let's do a CVS request, shall we? Oh, and thanks again for the review(s), Parag! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gnome-packagekit Short Description: GNOME applications for PackageKit Owners: rnorwood Branches: devel InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits:
cvs done.