[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Approval needed: cln, GiNaC



On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 14:45 -0500, Quentin Spencer wrote:

> All of these should now be fixed.

Review of GiNaC:

Rpmlint tests:

GiNaC-1.3.1-1.i386.rpm:
E: GiNaC no-signature

GiNaC-devel-1.3.1-1.i386.rpm:
E: GiNaC-devel requires-on-release GiNaC 1.3.1-1
W: GiNaC-devel no-major-in-name GiNaC-devel
E: GiNaC-devel no-signature

GiNaC-utils-1.3.1-1.i386.rpm:
E: GiNaC-utils requires-on-release GiNaC 1.3.1-1
E: GiNaC-utils no-signature

GiNaC-1.3.1-1.src.rpm:
E: GiNaC no-signature

All rpmlint errors can be ignored.

Good:

- Source matches upstream
- License OK (GPL), COPYING included in main package
- Libraries have ldconfig in %post/%postun
- Scriptlets look sane
- Meets PackageNamingGuidelines
- Meets PackagingGuidelines
- No missing BuildRequires

Approved.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]