Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544299
Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |yaneti@declera.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |yaneti@declera.com Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com 2009-12-04 16:32:55 EDT --- Licenses match. Some strange variations of .. See the * GNU General Public License for more details. line, which I think other than breaking automated license checkers don;t change the spirit,
Source little hard to tell if it matches because its not an official release tarball and the steps to reproduce it are not included (yeah I know that it comes from git.gnome.org), would be nice to have some basic instruction in the spec file. Builds in mock. Installs without fuss. Runs fine as far as I can tell.
The purpose of gcm-session is a unclear to me on a cursory glance.
$rpmlint gnome-color-manager-2.29.1-0.1.20091204git.fc13.x86_64.rpm gnome-color-manager.x86_64: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US colour gnome-color-manager.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/xdg/autostart/gcm-apply.desktop 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Can be ignored, although I think the British spelling is not necessary in a package called gnome-_color_-manager
- The GCONF_DISABLE_MAKEFILE_SCHEMA_INSTALL bits are redundant since --disable-schemas-install seems to be handled properly
- the gtk-update-icon-cache run in %post should probably be moved to %posttrans as per the packaging snippets guidelines
- The scrollkeeper bits aren't necessary since it has been obsoleted by rarian.
Looks ok. Issues not fatal but would be nice if addressed. APPROVED