[Bug 180747] Review Request: powerman

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Jun 16 03:45:12 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: powerman


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180747


jwilson at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com  2006-06-15 23:37 EST -------
Its yours to run with if you want, but I'd be happy to take it over. First
though, on with the review...

Review details:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently
* dist tag is present
* build root is correct
* license field matches the actual license
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package
* source files match upstream:
   a903511e470cb3be005075ebc739048e  powerman-1.0.24.tar.bz2
* latest version is being packaged
* BuildRequires are proper
* package builds in mock (x86_64, development)
* rpmlint has no complaints
* final provides and requires are sane:
config(powerman) = 1.0.24-1
powerman = 1.0.24-1
--
/bin/sh
config(powerman) = 1.0.24-1
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libnsl.so.1()(64bit)
libutil.so.1()(64bit)
libutil.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libwrap.so.0()(64bit)
--
* no shared libraries
* package is not relocatable
* owns the directories it creates
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't
* no duplicates in %files
* file permissions are appropriate
* %clean is present
* %check is not present; no applicable test suite upstream
* scriptlets present (chkconfig/service); all OK
* code, not content
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package
* no -devel subpackage to worry about
* no pkgconfig files
* no libtool .la files
* not a GUI app
* not a web app

Looks good to me, package 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