Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 175848
Summary: | Review Request: xfce4-taskmanager | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Christoph Wickert <cwickert> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list, wtogami |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-01-22 20:26:48 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Christoph Wickert
2005-12-15 18:55:08 UTC
Smart guy. =). Set to FE-ACCEPT. (In reply to comment #1) > Smart guy. =). Set to FE-ACCEPT. Maybe it's just me, but I can hardly call that a *review*... :-( I meant that I couldn't find any errors using rpmlint and mock. Sorry if you found my comment a bit offensive as it seems my quote failes to bring positive appreciation. The problem is that there is quite a bit more that should be reviewed, beside just rpmlint errors & whether it builds correctly in mock. There is nothing in your comments showing that you check any of the items listed in the PackageReview list from the wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewGuidelines#head-05a78c7ca440544397657679f87fbdbd84d9be28 For an example of what some other people's reviews look like, refer to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166351#c1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165952#c8 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166092#c2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=166409#c6 Luya, first of all I want to thank you for your work, but I'm having some problems with your reviews too. I joined FE just a short time before you so I think I still have a lot to learn. More detailed reviews would be helpful. This also has been mentioned on fedora-extras-list, see https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-December/msg01147.html One package had a md5sum mismatch, that I didn't notice, the tarball had silently been changed upstream (bug #173543). I downloaded all sources again and compared the sums so I'm sure they should match now, nevertheless I'd feel more comfortable if I knew somebody else checked the md5sums too. If anybody else would like to review (some of) my packages, he's highly welcome. ATM there are the following packages still to be reviewed: bug #173549 xfce4-mount-plugin bug #173552 xfce4-sensors-plugin bug #173553 xfce4-websearch-plugin bug #173653 xfce4-quicklauncher-plugin bug #173660 xfce4-diskperf-plugin and perhaps bug #173550 xfce4-netload-plugin bug #173661 xfce4-fsguard-plugin which have been reviewed by Luya but lack some detailed information. Thx everybody. My bad. I will be carefull next time. Detailed review (not too vague this time) + mock succesfully built the source package. No errors reported + rpmlint did not complain. No warning nor errors reported + package follow the PackageNameGuideline procedure: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines + tarball from source rpm matched source url listed on spec file. Both matched by md5sum and sha1sum + No error reported after install and removed package + License listed on SPEC file matches the source tarball : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Legal + SPEC file conform to PackagingGuideline http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines P.S: I got a lesson to be more detailed as possible Built fine for Core 3 and 4 on all arches, Rawhide is inconsistent atm. Closing. |