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: gnome-phone-manager

------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-07-14 05:45 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> == Not an official review as I'm not yet sponsored ==
>    Mock build for rawhide i386 is Failed. I need to add 
> BuildReuires: perl-XML-Parser

That should be: 

BuildReuires: perl(XML::Parser)

>    After that also i got errors as
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/
> /var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild gnome-phone-manager
> No translations found for gnome-phone-manager in
> /var/tmp/gnome-phone-manager-0.7-1.fc6-root-mockbuild
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.77473 (%install)

That's usually a sign of needing:

BuildRequires: gettext

> * MUST Items:
>       - rpmlint shows no error. 
>       - dist tag is present.
>       - The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
>       - The spec file name matching the base package gnome-phone-manager, in 
> the
> format gnome-phone-manager.spec.
>       - This package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
>       - The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
>       - The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license GPL.
>       - This package includes License file COPYING.
>       - This source package includes the text of the license in its own 
> file,and
> that file, containing the text of the license for the package is included in 
> %doc.
>       - The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
> as provided in the spec URL. md5sum is correct 
> (951471bf5d6fe93fe550c60b6bdf58f9)
>       - This package did NOT successfully compiled and built into binary rpms
> for i386 architecture.
>       - This package did not containd any ExcludeArch.
>       - This package did NOT handled locales properly. This is done by using 
> the
> %find_lang macro. Not used %{_datadir}/locale/*.

It's a good idea to list things that need fixing separately from the rest of the
review checklist as that's clearer and easier to read.

>       - This package used macros.

But did it use them *consistently*? That's what the review guidelines are asking
to be checked.

>       - Document files are included like README, NEWS, COPYING, AUTHORS

Did you look to see if there are any other document files in the package that
might be included, or whether any of the included files don't have anything
useful to end users of the package?

>       - Package did NOT contained any .la libtool archives.
> Also,
>       * Source URL is present and working.
>       * BuildRoot is correct BuildRoot:       
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
>       * BuildRequires is correct

No, they're not. The package failed to build in mock because of the missing
buildreqs of perl(XML::Parser) and gettext.

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