Bug 428717 - Package Review of virt-viewer 0.0.2 requested
Summary: Package Review of virt-viewer 0.0.2 requested
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Package Review
Version: 5.2
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
high
low
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Tim Burke
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 428211
Blocks: 188273 428164
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-01-14 19:53 UTC by Daniel Berrangé
Modified: 2008-09-15 09:10 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-09-15 09:10:30 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Proposed virt-viewer RPM (88.51 KB, application/octet-stream)
2008-01-14 19:55 UTC, Daniel Berrangé
no flags Details

Description Daniel Berrangé 2008-01-14 19:53:30 UTC
Description of problem:


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Daniel Berrangé 2008-01-14 19:55:21 UTC
Created attachment 291620 [details]
Proposed virt-viewer RPM

Comment 2 Daniel Berrangé 2008-01-14 19:58:45 UTC
Original Fedora review notes

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252421


Comment 3 Bill Burns 2008-01-14 20:58:24 UTC
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPM.
+ source files match upstream.
1bb5b589b20f45922a59da25d71c95b3  virt-viewer-0.0.1.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 files present.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code.
+ no static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists.
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available.
+ Does owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
+ no scriptlets are used.
+ Requires: 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 libdl.so.2
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 libglib-2.0.so.0 libgmodule-2.0.so.0
libgnutls.so.13 libgobject-2.0.so.0 libgtk-vnc-1.0.so.0 libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
libpango-1.0.so.0 libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 libvirt.so.0 libxenstore.so.3.0
libxml2.so.2 rtld(GNU_HASH)

+ Not a GUI app.

No significant changes since the Fedora review.

APPROVED.


Comment 4 Bill Burns 2008-01-14 21:00:27 UTC
Setting flags...


Comment 5 RHEL Program Management 2008-01-14 21:05:30 UTC
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in
the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. If you would like
this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your
support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?".

Comment 6 Daniel Riek 2008-01-17 20:08:47 UTC
Moving to RHEL-ACCEPT based on comment 3

Comment 7 Don Domingo 2008-04-02 02:16:57 UTC
Hi,
the RHEL5.2 release notes will be dropped to translation on April 15, 2008, at
which point no further additions or revisions will be entertained.

a mockup of the RHEL5.2 release notes can be viewed at the following link:
http://intranet.corp.redhat.com/ic/intranet/RHEL5u2relnotesmockup.html

please use the aforementioned link to verify if your bugzilla is already in the
release notes (if it needs to be). each item in the release notes contains a
link to its original bug; as such, you can search through the release notes by
bug number.

Cheers,
Don

Comment 8 Daniel Berrangé 2008-09-15 09:10:30 UTC
No idea why this BZ was still open when it was shipped long ago.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.