[Bug 1536993] Review Request: notejot - Stupidly-simple sticky notes applet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536993

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-01-29 14:59:28



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Built in rawhide, updates for f27 and f26 pending.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1536993] Review Request: notejot - Stupidly-simple sticky notes applet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536993



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/notejot

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1536993] Review Request: notejot - Stupidly-simple sticky notes applet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536993



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for the review! :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1536993] Review Request: notejot - Stupidly-simple sticky notes applet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536993

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or
 later)", "Unknown or generated". 32 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/notejot
 /review-notejot/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16@2,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48@2/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16@2/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16@2
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: