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
Bug 170995 - Review Request: system-config-control - System Control Center
Summary: Review Request: system-config-control - System Control Center
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom "spot" Callaway
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2005-10-17 08:06 UTC by Ankit Patel
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-11-20 12:26:55 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ankit Patel 2005-10-17 08:06:57 UTC
Spec Name or Url:
SRPM Name or Url:
Description: System-config-control provides an organized and centralized interface to all of Fedora's configuration utilities. It also hooks into firstboot, allowing these tools to be run after initial installation.

Comment 1 Ankit Patel 2005-10-19 05:13:18 UTC
This is my first package, and i need sponser !

Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2005-10-25 02:19:44 UTC


- rpmlint checks return:
W: system-config-control no-documentation

( safe to ignore )

E: system-config-control script-without-shellbang
E: system-config-control script-without-shellbang

( false positives, glade files are not scripts ) 

W: system-config-control symlink-should-be-relative

( ok by me. )

E: system-config-control script-without-shellbang

( Doesn't seem to affect runtime, so I'm ok )

W: system-config-control no-dependency-on usermode-consoleonly

( safe to ignore )

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- 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 (one minor exception)
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- .desktop file ok, handled properly

Minor items:

- In %clean, please use %{name} instead of %name for macro consistency.
- There is no need for the Requires(post) and Requires(postun). This is actually
my fault, since I accidentally put them in there when I was helping with the
pre-review cleanup. Sorry bout that.
- Don't use, use 

You might also want to consider using the %{?dist} tag at the end of the
release. This will help you use one spec for all branches of Fedora Core,
without artificially inflating the release number. See:

You also should consider including some documentation in the upstream source
(and in the package as %doc), especially, a copy of the GPL text in LICENSE.

Otherwise, this package looks good. Approved, as long as you fix those three
minor items before commit.

I will also sponsor you, please do your paperwork. :)

Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2005-10-25 05:40:31 UTC
script-without-shellbang warnings are usually a sign of executable text files 
(without the shebang) and should be fixed. 

Comment 4 Ankit Patel 2005-10-25 07:43:26 UTC
I have corrected the changes you all want. Download links are still same. Can
you please check it again and let me know about the next procedure/thing for me.

Comment 5 Ankit Patel 2005-11-07 06:46:13 UTC

Comment 6 Rahul Sundaram 2005-11-07 13:06:09 UTC
can you rename your package system-config-controlcenter. I am not sure the
current  name is specific enough.

Comment 7 Ankit Patel 2005-11-07 13:34:31 UTC
Renamin of package is not a big task. But i need the confirmation from the
reviewer if he really wants. After confirmation i will resubmit the package.

Comment 8 Ankit Patel 2005-11-10 08:42:53 UTC
I got the CVS access to fedora-extras. Do i need any confirmation or APPROVAL to
start my work into the CVS repository?

Comment 9 Warren Togami 2005-11-17 03:11:23 UTC
I am not branching this in CVS without an explicit approval.
Ankit, aren't you a Red Hat employee?  Would you please use your
address for your Bugzilla account?  It makes it easier for us to keep track of
what is going on in the project.

Comment 10 Tom "spot" Callaway 2005-11-17 03:17:08 UTC
I set it to FE-ACCEPT, i said it was Approved. If the packager wants to rename
it, that is as their discretion.

Comment 11 Ankit Patel 2005-11-20 10:39:00 UTC
This package is now available for FE4 and FE-devel both. So, should i resolve
this bug as NEXTRELEASE ?

Comment 12 Rahul Sundaram 2005-11-20 12:26:55 UTC
Yes. Doing so now.

Comment 13 Christian Iseli 2006-10-18 12:44:32 UTC
Normalize summary field for easy parsing

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.