[Bug 491650] Review Request: libica - Library for accessing ICA hardware crypto on IBM zSeries
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=491650 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-05-06 03:51:03 EDT --- Imported and built. -- 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 491650] Review Request: libica - Library for accessing ICA hardware crypto on IBM zSeries
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=491650 --- Comment #4 from Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us 2009-05-01 16:51:29 EDT --- CVS Done -- 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 491650] Review Request: libica - Library for accessing ICA hardware crypto on IBM zSeries
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=491650 Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- 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 491650] Review Request: libica - Library for accessing ICA hardware crypto on IBM zSeries
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=491650 --- Comment #2 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-04-30 04:49:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Is the warning regarding no documentation considered fatal? Other than that, this package looks fine to me. I'll approve this and the documentation issue should be fixed or ignored. The warning is harmless here, because there is no documentation other than the AUTHORS and LICENSE files and these are included in the main package that will be always installed (it is the library). New scratch build using the same srpm this time for F-11 is at https://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55252 -- 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 491650] Review Request: libica - Library for accessing ICA hardware crypto on IBM zSeries
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=491650 Dan Horák d...@danny.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Dan Horák d...@danny.cz 2009-04-30 05:39:40 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: libica Short Description: Library for accessing ICA hardware crypto on IBM zSeries Owners: sharkcz Branches: F-11 -- 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 491650] Review Request: libica - Library for accessing ICA hardware crypto on IBM zSeries
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=491650 Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||dpie...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dpie...@redhat.com -- 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 491650] Review Request: libica - Library for accessing ICA hardware crypto on IBM zSeries
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=491650
Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flag||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Darryl L. Pierce dpie...@redhat.com 2009-04-29 17:09:23
EDT ---
Is the warning regarding no documentation considered fatal? Other than that,
this package looks fine to me. I'll approve this and the documentation issue
should be fixed or ignored.
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.[1]
rpmlint output:
(mcpie...@mcpierce-laptop:Desktop)$ for rpm in *.rpm; do rpmlint $rpm; done
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
libica-devel.s390x: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
libica-utils.s390x: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] [OK]
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. [19] [OK]
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22] [OK]
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29] [OK]
SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. [30] [OK]
--
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
