https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822896

pcpa <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
                   |                            |a...@gmail.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from pcpa <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com> ---
I would like to review this package.

The first issues I noticed:

data/elldata/README is not %doc tagged.

I could not find information about how to verify the signed file.
But after some searching this should give some hints:

-%<-
$ gpg --verify SOURCES/elldata.tgz.asc SOURCES/elldata.tgz
# get key number

gpg --recv-keys --keyserver hkp://pgp.mit.edu/ key B5444815
gpg: "key" not a key ID: skipping
gpg: requesting key B5444815 from hkp server pgp.mit.edu
gpg: key B5444815: public key "Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org>" imported
gpg: no ultimately trusted keys found
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg:               imported: 1

$ gpg --verify SOURCES/elldata.tgz.asc SOURCES/elldata.tgz
gpg: Signature made Sun 15 Apr 2012 11:37:04 AM BRT using DSA key ID B5444815
gpg: Good signature from "Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org>"
gpg:                 aka "Bill Allombert (Lab. A2X)
<allom...@math.u-bordeaux.fr>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: 4940 AE28 C5F8 E8A3 5E4D  8D28 7833 ECF1 B544 4815
-%<-

README file also appears to be quite outdated, and only says the
data is under the terms of the GNU GPL, no license version
information.

The README file also says it was last updated 11/04/2012, so, I
think a better approach for version should be used. As
Version:  20120415
has some flaws; personal experience with non versioned texlive
packages... and suddenly a version being added to it, but those
are rare cases, so, just a suggestion, e.g. either use
<pari-version>.<date> or 0.<date>.

-- 
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

Reply via email to