[Bug 446650] Review Request: lwp - LWP thread 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: lwp - LWP thread library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446650


lemenkov at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From lemenkov at gmail.com  2008-05-16 05:46 EST -------
REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is not silent but produces only one warning (may be safely omitted):

[petro at localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/lwp-*
lwp-devel.i386: W: no-documentation
[petro at localhost SPECS]$

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing
Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec matches the actual license.
+ File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

[petro at localhost SOURCES]$ md5sum lwp-2.4.tar.gz*
5bd3221562de580d51f18c547f7606e3  lwp-2.4.tar.gz
5bd3221562de580d51f18c547f7606e3  lwp-2.4.tar.gz.1
[petro at localhost SOURCES]$ 

+ The package successfully compiled and built into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture (i386).
+ No build dependencies.
+ The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ A package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of
Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ Everything a package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application. 
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
+ Package is 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
+ The library files that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
+ Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ Not a GUI app.
+ Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

To review this package was easy and now it's 

APPROVED.

-- 
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.