[Bug 226185] Merge Review: ncompress

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Feb 3 23:47:40 UTC 2007


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

Summary: Merge Review: ncompress


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226185


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu           |pvrabec at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-02-03 18:47 EST -------
rpmlint is silent, so there's just the buildroot.

* source files match upstream:
   d074dd867a22272fe1a22166b4644dda9ff09e41449f3f3bf3a15f2a070b00f8
   ncompress-4.2.4.tar.Z
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
X build root should be:
  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license.
  The file LZW.INFO indicates that teh code is in the compression is in the
  public domain; I'm making the assumption that this covers the entire program.
  This package has been around for so long that I doubt that's incorrect.
* license is open source-compatible.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (It's not necessary for gcc to be there.)
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %makeinstall is not used.
* package builds in mock.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane
   ncompress = 4.2.4-48.fc7
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.


-- 
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