Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: rss-glx -- Really Slick Screensavers

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-23 10:46 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> You might consider being a bit more descriptive in %description.  Perhaps
> something like:
> A port of the Really Slick Screensavers to GLX.  Provides several visually
> impressive and graphically intensive screensavers.
> Note that this package contains only the display hacks themselves; you will 
> need
> to install the appropriate subpackage for your desktop environment in order to
> use them as screensavers.
> (Or whatever; I'm making this up on the spot.  The point is that people won't
> understand what is meant by "contains only the hacks themselves".)

Thanks, I've updated the description blocks accordingly.

> The permissions on are 0775, which is a bit odd (and
> rpmlint complains about it).  Executable documentation is generally frowned 
> upon
> and rpmlint also complains about it (because your documentation pulls in an
> additional /bin/bash dependency).  I would recommend just installing it 0644 
> and
> leave it at that.


> Is there any reason to package  This pulls in an odd
> perl(strict) dependency but not a plain perl dependency, which looks a bit 
> odd.
>  (I know perl provides perl(strict), but perl probably shouldn't be needed at

Not necessary and removed.

> You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in some places and %buildroot in others.  The 
> packaging
> guidelines require one or the other to be used consistently.


The new files are at the usual locations with the new SRPM at:

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to