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 194560 - Review Request: vnc-reflector
Summary: Review Request: vnc-reflector
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jima
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-06-14 03:37 UTC by Chris Weyl
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-06-14 18:38:33 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Chris Weyl 2006-06-14 03:37:08 UTC
Spec URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/vnc-reflector.spec
SRPM URL: http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/vnc-reflector-1.2.4-0.fc5.src.rpm
Description:

Reflector is a specialized VNC server which acts as a proxy sitting between
real VNC server (a host) and a number of VNC clients. It was designed to work
efficiently with large number of clients.

Comment 1 Jima 2006-06-14 12:29:58 UTC
Since I was bored, Chris strong-armed me into reviewing a package. ;-)

First off, I've heard that you should use "dl.sf.net" for SourceForge-hosted
downloads, as opposed to a particular mirror. You might want to do that.

Since I'm fairly new to reviewing, I'm going to use the Review Guidelines as a
checklist. I apologize for the verbosity. :-)

1. rpmlint returned nothing. We like that.
2. This adds functionality to vnc, and isn't particularly useful without it.
Ergo, I think it meets the Naming Guideline for addon packages.
3. Spec filename is vnc-reflector.spec, check.
4. As far as I can tell, this package meets all of the requirements of the
Packaging Guidelines.
5. Good: BSD license.
6. ...verified by upstream's site.
7. LICENSE included in %doc, good.
8. Looks like American English to me.
9. Spec seems quite clearly written.
10. Tarball MD5 matches upstream (c3f88bc62f228b335c25c07f9744ab0c).
11. Package builds fine on i386, ppc, and sparc (sorry, I don't have an x86_64 box).
12. n/a
13. BuildReqs look fairly sane.
14. n/a, I think.
15. n/a (no shared libs)
16. n/a
17. Owns its docs directory.
18. No duplicate files.
19. Permissions look good.
20. Has correct %clean section.
21. Macro use appears consistent.
22. Package contains code, not content.
23. n/a, very little documentation.
24. %doc files are non-critical.
25-30. n/a
31. I'm fairly certain its file ownership doesn't overlap with any other packages.
32-33. n/a
34. Built in Plague, actually.
35. I can't verify x86_64, but it should.
36. Connected to a VNC server through it. (And accidentally left it running for
two hours with no problems.) Yay, it works!
37. n/a, no scriptlets.
38. n/a, no subpackages.

Unless anyone can find anything I missed or screwed up, I think this package can
be APPROVED.

Comment 2 Chris Weyl 2006-06-14 18:38:33 UTC
Thanks for the review! :)  Imported and built for FC-[45], devel.


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