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=225902
Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |limburgher(a)gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |limburgher(a)gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> 2012-04-05 13:41:53 EDT ---
Fresh review:
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
intltool.spec:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xml-i18n-tools
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.
intltool.noarch: W: self-obsoletion xml-i18n-tools obsoletes xml-i18n-tools =
0.11
The package obsoletes itself. This is known to cause errors in various tools
and should thus be avoided, usually by using appropriately versioned Obsoletes
and/or Provides and avoiding unversioned ones
Fix.
intltool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bonobo -> Bono, bonbon,
Bonn
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
intltool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ui -> ii, u, i
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
intltool.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US po -> PO, pew, op
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
Ignore.
intltool.noarch: E: devel-dependency gettext-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
Does this really need gettext-devel or just gettext? Should perhaps the
Requires and BuildRequires for gettext and gettext-devel be reversed? If this
is correct, that's fine.
Several incorrect FSF address errors, not a huge issue, fix bugs upstream if
you like.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( GPLv2 with exceptions ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
Otherwise it looks pretty good. Just the dependency questions. Let me know if
you'd like me to commit anything.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.