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: steghide - A Steganography Program https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198691 cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-21 00:04 EST ------- Parag: Good first pass at a review. Note that compiler warnings like that are generally disregarded for the purposes of review, unless it's something _serious_ or correctable on our end. But, that being said, when in doubt, note it. The MUSTs are good places to start for reviews, as you've discovered... I encourage you to look at the other templates people are using (or patently stealing, like me <grin>). Keep it up, you're improving each time around. Jochen: I'd recommend addressing the rpmlint warning below as it's a lot of visual spam otherwise, but it's not a blocker. + 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: 5be490e24807d921045780fd8cc446b3 steghide-0.5.1.tar.gz 5be490e24807d921045780fd8cc446b3 steghide-0.5.1.tar.gz.srpm + latest version is being packaged. + BuildRequires are proper. + package builds in mock (5+devel/x86_64). + rpmlint is silent on binary package O rpmlint issues warming on source package (ignorable) W: steghide setup-not-quiet + final provides and requires are sane: steghide-0.5.1-1.fc5.x86_64.rpm == provides steghide = 0.5.1-1.fc5 == requires libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libmcrypt.so.4()(64bit) libmhash.so.2()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) + no shared libraries are present. + 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: + no scriptlets present. + code, not content. + documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. + %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. + no headers. + no pkgconfig files. + no libtool .la droppings. + not a GUI app. + not a web app. APPROVED -- 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