[Bug 463079] Review Request: ibp - A tool to show which IBP beacons are transmitting

[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=463079


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

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




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-11-20 15:57:53 EDT ---
Not much to say about this one.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   b3b118ca83619f0a5605652a0a8c385c77ada3a10321a771e2d19f9f59604abd  
   ibp-0.21.tgz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* 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:
   ibp = 0.21-1.fc10
   ibp(x86-64) = 0.21-1.fc10
  =
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libncurses.so.5()(64bit)
   libtinfo.so.5()(64bit)

* %check is not present; seems to run OK although I've no idea how to interpret 
   the output.
* 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 generically named files
* 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.
* desktop files valid and installed properly.

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.