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=678727 Steve Traylen <steve.tray...@cern.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Steve Traylen <steve.tray...@cern.ch> 2011-03-13 04:17:09 EDT --- - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines It does, pam module ones in particular. - Spec file matches base package name. Yes - Spec has consistant macro usage. Yes. - Meets Packaging Guidelines. Yes - License MIT - License field in spec matches The LICENSE file is very verbose in specifying all the various copy rights but yes it seems to MIT. - License file included in package Yes - Spec in American English Yes - Spec is legible. Yes - Sources match upstream md5sum: $ md5sum pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.g 5621adc56319582b71b61546face4409 pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.gz 5621adc56319582b71b61546face4409 ../SOURCES/pam-afs-session-2.2.tar.gz - Package needs ExcludeArch It does not - BuildRequires correct Yes. - Spec handles locales/find_lang Not present. - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. Not relocatable. - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. They are. - Package has a correct %clean section. Yes - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) - Package is code or permissible content. Yes. - Doc subpackage needed/used. Not needed. - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. They don't - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. Not needed. - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun Not needed. - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig Not needed - .so files in -devel subpackage. Not needed. - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - .la files are removed. They are. - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file No gui - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. See koji. - Package has no duplicate files in %files. No - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. /lib/security is pulled in via pam which is required - good. - Package owns all the directories it creates. - No rpmlint output. pam_afs_session.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afs -> ads, as, oafs pam_afs_session-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) afs -> ads, as, oafs pam_afs_session-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afs -> ads, as, oafs pam_afs_session.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US afs -> ads, as, oafs - final provides and requires are sane: $ rpm -qp --provides pam_afs_session-2.2-2.x86_64.rpm pam_afs_session.so()(64bit) pam_afs_session = 2.2-2 pam_afs_session(x86-64) = 2.2-2 $ rpm -qp --requires pam_afs_session-2.2-2.x86_64.rpm | grep -v rpm | grep -v libc libk5crypto.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3()(64bit) libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_EXTENSION_1.0)(64bit) libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_MODUTIL_1.0)(64bit) pam_krb5 SHOULD Items: - Should build in mock. See koji. - Should build on all supported archs See koji - Should function as described. Not checked. - Should have sane scriptlets. None - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. Not relavent. - Should have dist tag Yes - Should package latest version Yes - check for outstanding bugs on package. Issues: All seems good. APPROVED. Steve. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
