[Bug 189219] Review Request: [Games SIG] poker-eval - Poker hand evaluator library

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Apr 22 06:26:26 UTC 2006


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: [Games SIG] poker-eval - Poker hand evaluator library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189219


wart at kobold.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |wart at kobold.org
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From wart at kobold.org  2006-04-22 02:26 EST -------
rpmlint output clean.

MUST
====
* Spec file named appropriately
* Source matches upstream
  b6feea367ba1c49d85fb04cf5913e2d9  poker-eval-130.0.tar.gz
* Spec file legible and in Am. English
* No BR: needed
* No locales
* ldconfig called correctly for .so files
* GPL license ok, license file included
* %{buildroot} cleaned appropriately
* macro usage consistent
* contains code, not content
* headers and pkgconfig files in -devel
* un-suffixed library in -devel
* -devel requires base
* No .desktop file needed
* Builds clean in mock on:
  FC-4 i386, FC4-x86_64, FC-5 i386, FC-5 x86_64

SHOULD
======
* You might want to let upstream know about the empty directory named '*'
  in the source tarball.
* You might want to suggest to upstream to include the GPL reference at the top
of the various .c and .h files.
* The C examples would make more sense in an examples/ subdirectory instead of
the top level doc dir.

APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list