[Bug 456723] Review Request: libatasmart - ATA S.M.A.R.T. Disk Health Monitoring Library

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: libatasmart - ATA S.M.A.R.T. Disk Health Monitoring Library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456723


adel.gadllah at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




------- Additional Comments From adel.gadllah at gmail.com  2008-07-26 11:51 EST -------
[-]	source files match upstream:
		it doesn't fbffdc4551dd63368babf6fdd659a4bef8e0e647 vs
23116bb3a88fb9ccfbe229ac5a209beb8c80535f
		please package the upstream tarball (When doing changes upstream please bump
the release)
[+]	package meets naming and versioning 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:
		The spec says "License: LGPLv2" while the source files say "or (at your
option) any later version."
		Please change to LGPLv2+
[+]	license is open source-compatible.
[+]	license text included in package.
[?]	latest version is being packaged:
		The version number is the lastest but the checksums do not match (see first
comment)
[+]	BuildRequires are proper.
[+]	compiler flags are appropriate.
[+]	%clean is present.
[+]	package builds in koji:
	http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=740525
[+]	package installs properly.
[+]	debuginfo package looks complete.
[+]	rpmlint output:
	Shows one waring "libatasmart-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation" can be safly
ignored.
[+]	ldconfig is used in %post and %postun
[+]	no duplicates in %files.
[+]	file permissions are appropriate.
[+]	code, not content.
[+]	documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
[+]	%docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

------
Package looks good to me please fix the two issues noted and I will approve it.
* package correct upstream tarball
* fix license tag



-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.