[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
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: emacs-vm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
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: emacs-vm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution||NEXTRELEASE
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-22 15:08 EST ---
Package imported.
Group set as Applications/Internet.
Added a Requires:%{version}-%{release} to the subpackage.
Closing NEXTRELEASE.
Many thanks again.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
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: emacs-vm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 02:10 EST ---
Sorry, I meant to review this quite a while back...
OK - Package name
OK - Spec file matches base package name.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (GPL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
7866f6243e398d76ae32356a4af76fa3 vm-7.19.tar.gz
7866f6243e398d76ae32356a4af76fa3 vm-7.19.tar.gz.1
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
n/a - Package needs ExcludeArch
OK - BuildRequires correct
n/a - Spec handles locales/find_lang
n/a - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
n/a - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
n/a - -doc subpackage needed/used.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
n/a - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .pc files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - .so files in -devel subpackage.
n/a - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
n/a - .la files are removed.
n/a - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
See below - No rpmlint output.
Issues:
1. Should the Requires for the el subpackage be:
'Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}' instead of just
'Requires: %{name} = %{version}'
That could cause some confusion down the road.
2. You have the Group as 'Applications/Editors'
Since this is a mail reader perhaps one of:
Applications/Communications
Applications/Internet
Applications/Productivity
would be more approprate?
3. One (ignoreable) rpmlint warning:
W: emacs-vm-el no-documentation
As none of those are blockers, this package is APPROVED.
You may want to look at items 1 and 2 as you are importing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
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: emacs-vm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 06:45 EST --- Hi Kevin, Thanks for taking the time to review, much appreciated. I think you're probably right - Applications/Communications may be the appropriate group. I'll ponder on that. And regarding point one - yes version-release would be better. Will make those changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
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: emacs-vm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184000 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 07:27 EST --- mew and wl have been Applications/Internet FWIW. (My initial reaction on seeing this discussion was that Application/* should be for desktop applications but doesn't seem to have been the case always.:) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 184000] Review Request: emacs-vm
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: emacs-vm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|177841 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-18 21:27 EST --- If you could update the package to reflect the new 'emacs-common-$name' I can see about doing a review. (removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR as you are now sponsored). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
