[Bug 481159] Review Request: ocaml-autoconf - Autoconf macros for OCaml

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481159


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>  2009-04-01 13:55:11 EDT ---
There's not really all that much to this package.  I've no idea how to test it,
of course, but packaging-wise it's fine.

I would generally advise against using https links for Source URLs when the
upstream sites have unverifiable certificates; it breaks spectool.  Maybe one
day cacert will pull its head out with regards to the licensing of its root
certificates and we can include them in Fedora by default.  Luckily my spectool
is patched to pass --no-check-certificate.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
   67e85520f65c033c86e99e5438e51657e777579034570527c1b2c62096ecb004  
   ocaml-autoconf-1.0.tar.gz
* 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.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   ocaml-autoconf = 1.0-1.fc11
  =
   automake

* 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.

_______________________________________________
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]