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: keyutils - Kernel key management userspace utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190664 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-03 12:12 EST ------- The Source0 URL doesn't exist. You're the upstream so it doesn't seem to matter much for the purposes of the review, but it would be good to make sure that the source is always where the srpm says it is. You install a shared libary into a system location but you don't call ldconfig. I believe this is a blocker. Review: * package meets naming and packaging 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. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. ? source files match upstream (can't check) ? latest version is being packaged (I assume so since you're the upstream) * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: keyutils-1.1-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm config(keyutils) = 1.1-3.fc6 keyutils = 1.1-3.fc6 = /bin/sh config(keyutils) = 1.1-3.fc6 libkeyutils.so.1()(64bit) libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_0.3)(64bit) libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_1.0)(64bit) keyutils-libs-1.1-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm libkeyutils.so.1()(64bit) libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_0.3)(64bit) libkeyutils.so.1(KEYUTILS_1.0)(64bit) keyutils-libs = 1.1-3.fc6 = libkeyutils.so.1()(64bit) keyutils-libs-devel-1.1-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm keyutils-libs-devel = 1.1-3.fc6 = keyutils-libs = 1.1-3.fc6 X shared libraries are present (in -libs subpackage) but ldconfig is not called. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. ? no scriptlets present (but there should be) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. (Most of the documentation is in the -devel subpackage). * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review