[Bug 449207] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449207 Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fab...@bernewireless.net Flag|fedora-review? | --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter fab...@bernewireless.net 2009-02-10 05:02:05 EDT --- Reset review flag -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449207] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449207 Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||DUPLICATE --- Comment #7 from Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-22 12:02:27 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 463211 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449207] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449207 --- Comment #6 from Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-22 12:02:10 EDT --- Closing this due to inactivity. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449207] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449207 Michel Alexandre Salim [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-11 10:04:45 EDT --- ping again. We need notify-sharp to update gnome-do ... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449207] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449207 Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #4 from Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-01 13:49:33 EDT --- ping -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449207] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449207 Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449207] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
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: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449207 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-15 08:31 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) So, mostly good. The URL doesn't work for me though, is this the new url for the project: http://www.ndesk.org/NotifySharp No, it'd appear that is an old URL for the project, the URL in the SPEC file still works for me. You should also include a comment on how to reproduce your tarball so one can check if the source matches upstream easily. I couldn't find the svn repository this is taken from to verify. Argh, how silly of me, I'll update this 'soon'. I'm currently a little too busy to provide an update now but hopefully have one by Friday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449207] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
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: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449207 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-14 13:07 EST --- I'm taking this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 449207] Review Request: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop Notifications
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: notify-sharp - A C# implementation for Desktop
Notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449207
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-06-14 16:52 EST ---
Nytt notat 262
I'm taking this.
Passed:
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
notify-sharp.i386: E: no-binary
notify-sharp.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
These can be ignored for mono packages.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines.
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable
to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not
the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to
the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries
during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment
until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the
long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one
(or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions exceptions
section of Packaging Guidelines] ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is
optional. Apply common sense.
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ([wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT] ).
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the
[wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#macros macros section of Packaging Guidelines] .
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described
in detail in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent code vs. content
section of Packaging Guidelines] .
- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership
