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 190949 (gaim-gaym)
Summary: | Review Request: gaim-gaym | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Chris Weyl <cweyl> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Thorsten Leemhuis (ignored mailbox) <bugzilla-sink> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | noa |
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: | 2006-05-18 16:49:08 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
Chris Weyl
2006-05-07 02:00:27 UTC
The src.rpm gives a 404 Just a quick note on the .spec file. The Requires: gtk2 is probably redundant. rpmbuild will normally find out the correct library dependencies automagically Apologies -- had pushed rel 0 rather than rel 1 of the srpm :\ Spec tweaked, explicit requires: gtk2 dropped. Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/gaim-gaym.spec SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/gaim-gaym-0.96-2.fc5.src.rpm Although I'm not an officially blessed reviewer I thought that I can do a test review and learn somewhat from it. good: - rpmlint without any complaints - although the upstream tarball is named qrc the user community uses the name gaym, so I think changing the name is a good call even though it violates the first sentence of the package naming guidelines - specfile name matches %{name} - license is indeed GPL - COPYING is included in %doc - to the best of my knowledge the spec is written in american english - the specfile is quite readable - tarball referenced maches the tarball included - the package builds correctly and seems to work quite well on fc5/i386, it also builds on fc4/x86_64 but I haven't actually tested it there - no localization, no shared libraries, not relocateable, no scriptlets - no duplicates in %files - it contains a GUI but since it is embedded in gaim the .desktop MUST is not applicable - no scriptlets As far as my newbies eyes can tell this package is problem free and works as expected. With my newly recieved blessing powers I'd like to exclaim +1 Publish! I have also tested build on fc5/x86_64 and it works as expected |