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 202384

Summary:	Review Request: dates
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jesse Keating <jkeating>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Brian Pepple <bdpepple>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	cq92j9y+rlkr0w, dcantrell, peter
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:	2006-08-14 15:41:22 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 Jesse Keating 2006-08-14 01:48:22 UTC

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/dates/dates.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/extras/dates/dates-0.1-1.20060813svn.src.rpm

Description: 
Dates is a small, lightweight calendar that uses Evolution Data Server as a
backend. Dates features an innovative, unified, zooming view and is designed
for use on primarily hand-held devices. It features both a âvanillaâ GTK
user interface and tailored support for the Nokia 770 maemo interface.

rpmlint complains about mixed tabs and spaces, but I'm having a hard time finding that.

Also, no docs for -devel but I think thats ignorable.

Comment 1 Jesse Keating 2006-08-14 02:06:17 UTC

When using dates, I discovered that it cannot display recurring events.  I've
filed a bug upstream: http://bugzilla.o-hand.com/show_bug.cgi?id=136

Comment 2 Peter Gordon 2006-08-14 06:11:46 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
> Also, no docs for -devel but I think thats ignorable.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply add the COPYING file to %doc in this case?

Comment 3 Jesse Keating 2006-08-14 11:57:03 UTC

COPYING is already in the main package, and the devel package requires the main
package.  Putting it in the devel package seems silly to me, and just fiddling
to make rpmlint happy on a warning.  If there are ever any development docs I'll
add them to the devel package, but for now there are hardly _ANY_ docs to speak of.

Comment 4 Brian Pepple 2006-08-14 14:57:32 UTC

PUBLISH +1

Good:
* tarball verified against svn
* Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines
* Group Tag is from the official list
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* Desktop entry is fine
* All necessary BuildRequires listed.
* All desired features are enabled
* Make succeeds even when %{_smp_mflags} is defined
* Scriptlets look good.
* Files have appropriate permissions and owners
* Package installs and uninstalls cleanly on FC5
* rpmlint is basically clean. The warning about the devel package not having
docs can be ignored.

Comment 5 Jesse Keating 2006-08-14 15:41:22 UTC

Dates has been built for extras-development.  Cheers!