[Bug 187610] Review Request: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: crm114 - CRM114 Bayesian Spam Detector


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187610


jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2006-08-17 17:02 EST -------
Going down my checklist again...

1. One rpmlint warning (W: crm114-emacs no-documentation), which was deemed
acceptable.
2. Package appears to meet Package Naming Guidelines.
3. Spec is named crm114.spec, check.
4. Package meets Packaging Guidelines, AFAICT.
5. Licensed under GPL, check.
6. License: GPL, check.
7. %doc contains GPL-License.txt, which I missed on my first pass.
8. Spec appears to be American English.
9. Spec seems legible.
10. md5sum on tarball matches upstream now (not sure what was up with that).
11. Compiles and builds on i386/ppc (my two supported build platforms).
12. x86_64 excluded, as per dependency on tre-devel.  You noted bug #202893, the
blocker.  Good.
13. Builds under Plague, so I imagine all of its dependencies are listed.
14. n/a, I think.
15. n/a (no shared libs)
16. n/a
17. You changed crm114-emacs' Req to emacs-el, resolving this issue.
18. No duplicate %files entries.
19. Defattr seems valid.
20. Has valid %clean section.
21. Macro use appears consistent.
22. Package contains code, not content.
23. Documentation makes up over 50% of the package's size, but that's still not
that much.
24. I don't see anything in %doc affecting runtime.
25. No header files or static libraries.
26. No .pc files.
27. No library files, much less ones with suffixes.
28. n/a (no -devel subpackage)
29. No .la files.
30. No GUI applications.
31. Doesn't own any directories owned by other packages (to the best of my
knowledge).
32. n/a, I overlooked GPL-License.txt
33. I'm not sure there are any description/summary translations available.
34. Package builds as i386 and ppc in Plague (and thus Mock).
35. Package won't build on x86_64 due to dependency's ExcludeArch: x86_64; other
architectures, yes.
36. I can't verify full functionality, but the binary doesn't segfault on i386/ppc.
37. No scriptlets.
38. The -emacs subpackage doesn't depend on the main package, ergo no listed Req.

Unless I screwed something up, it looks like crm114 is APPROVED.  Go forth and
import. :-)

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]