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: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175623 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|gdk@xxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-21 00:02 EST ------- Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) and rpmlint is quiet. * 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: 2d401ea471a87e7a056ea2df9e2d9d14 yaz-2.1.22.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (x86_64, development). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libyaz-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libyazthread.so.2()(64bit) libyaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6 = /sbin/ldconfig libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libexslt.so.0()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxslt.so.1()(64bit) libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libyazthread.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libyaz-devel-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm libyaz-devel = 2.1.22-1.fc6 = /bin/sh libxml2-devel libyaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6 libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libyazthread.so.2()(64bit) openssl-devel readline-devel yaz-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm yaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6 = libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libexslt.so.0()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit) libhistory.so.5()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libwrap.so.0()(64bit) libxml2.so.2()(64bit) libxslt.so.1()(64bit) libyaz.so.2()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called and unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * 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 present and all tests pass: =================== All 21 tests passed =================== * scriptlets present and OK (ldconfig calls) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers present in -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review