[Bug 491884] Review Request: atasm - 6502 cross-assembler

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Apr 6 19:52:10 UTC 2009


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=491884


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>  2009-04-06 15:52:09 EDT ---
Builds fine and rpmlint is silent.  There's really not much to this package;
the only thing I can note is that the documentation makes up about 80% of the
package, but it's still very small and splitting out the docs would be dumb.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   9822e96baa39a16e8c46c0d4892bd76157f7de1fffd6c8d6ced1bda809450171  
   atasm106.zip
* 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:
   atasm = 1.06-1.fc11
   atasm(x86-64) = 1.06-1.fc11
  =
   libz.so.1()(64bit)

* %check is present and all tests pass.
* 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.

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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list