This is a GTK3 port of libunique, parallel installable with the unique2 package.
[+] source files match upstream: 32ab9849994da70f461fc78c59a2b930d294f8c7
[+] package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
[+] specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
[+] dist tag is present.
[+] license field matches the actual license.
[+] license is open source-compatible: LGPLv2+
[+] latest version is being packaged.
[+] BuildRequires are proper.
[+] compiler flags are appropriate.
[+] package builds in koji.
[+] package installs properly.
[+] debuginfo package looks complete.
 rpmlint is silent.
[+] owns the directories it creates.
[+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
[+] no duplicates in %files.
[+] file permissions are appropriate.
[+] scriptlets are sane.
[+] code, not content.
[+] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[+] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
[+] no libtool .la droppings.
: Just noise:
unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src/unique3.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src/unique3.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
unique3-2.90.1-1.fc14.src/unique3.spec: W: no-%clean-section
Some trivial suggestion:
1.It loooks like BuildRequires: gnome-doc-utils >= 0.3.2 and Requires: pkgconfig
is not needed.
2. I seems the minimum version for gtk3 is 2.90.0, I think BuildRequires: gtk3-devel >= 2.90.0 can be changed to gtk3-devel.
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: unique3
Short Description: Single instance support for GTK+ 3 applications
The fedora-cvs flag is set but there's no CVS request that I can find. Resetting the flag.
Sorry. For some reason the request got marked as a private comment...
OK, now I get to ask if that CVS request is correct. You've pushed this package all the way through review but you won't be the owner?
I've asked Richard if he would mind owning it, since he is the maintainer of unique, and this is just a gtk3 port of that. But feel free to add me as owner as well, if it makes your job easier, I don't mind owning yet another package...
Why not rename this package to libunique instead of unique3? Upstream seems call it as libunique, the tarball name is also libunique-2.90.1.tar.bz2.
It is named this way for consistency with the unique package.
If you look at http://live.gnome.org/LibUnique, you will find equal amounts of references to libunique and unique.
(In reply to comment #9)
> It is named this way for consistency with the unique package.
> If you look at http://live.gnome.org/LibUnique, you will find equal amounts of
> references to libunique and unique.
IMHO, I think unique should be renamed to libunique.
Upstream renamed tarball to libunique completely after version 1.0.6.
I think it's more reasonable to rename this package to libunique or libunique3.
Also, only unique tarball is only available at http://people.gnome.org/~ebassi/source/
Gnome site always use libunique as tarball name even on version 1.0.0.
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Changing status to assigned.