[Bug 1355] Review request: minitube - A YouTube desktop client

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1355


Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|2                           |4
         AssignedTo|rpmfusion-package-          |kalev at smartlink.ee
                   |review at rpmfusion.org        |
             Status|REOPENED                    |NEW




--- Comment #48 from Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee>  2010-08-11 14:11:50 ---
RPM Fusion review minitube-1.1-6.fc13.src.rpm 2010-08-11

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint minitube-1.1-6.fc13.src.rpm minitube minitube-debuginfo
minitube.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary minitube
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

+ Rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ Spec file name matches the base package name
+ Package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains license files (COPYING, LICENSE.LGPL, and INSTALL)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
  075841322631486a8bb69575ec05f5ca  minitube-1.1.tar.gz
  075841322631486a8bb69575ec05f5ca  Download/minitube-1.1.tar.gz

+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
+ The spec file handles locales properly
n/a ldconfig
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code, or permissable content.
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc don't affect the package
n/a Header files must go to -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Library files that end in .so must go to -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Package doesn't contain any libtool .la files
+ Proper .desktop file handling
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

Looks good. APPROVED


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.