[Bug 458408] Review Request: vttest - Test the compatibility of so-called "VT100-compatible" terminals

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=458408


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-08-09 20:50:12 EDT ---
License seems to be MIT, not BSD.  It's just the "  Old Style with legal
disclaimer" from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT with the MIT
references removed or replaced.

You probably don't want to use %{__mv} and %{__rm} in %prep but instead want
the non-macro versions to match the rest of your spec.

* source files match upstream:
   6c754405c1b9af2a28ba0975058ef8a38da230bc8c8e0874aebcbe2ff24dee7d  
   vttest.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named and is cleanly written
X macros not used consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field should read "MIT".
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none)
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   vttest = 20071216-1.fc10
   vttest(x86-64) = 20071216-1.fc10
  =

  vttest-debuginfo-20071216-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   vttest-debuginfo = 20071216-1.fc10
   vttest-debuginfo(x86-64) = 20071216-1.fc10
  =

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
  I ran this manually in the mock chroot and it seems to work fine.
* 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 -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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.