[Bug 199183] Review Request: e2tools - Manipulate files in unmounted ext2/ext3 filesystems

[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: e2tools - Manipulate files in unmounted ext2/ext3 filesystems


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199183


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2006-10-05 23:04 EST -------
This seems to have dropped through the cracks.  I grabbed the package from
http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/e2tools/e2tools-0.0.16-5.src.rpm and it builds fine on
x86_64.

* source files match upstream:
   1829b2b261e0e0d07566066769b5b28b  e2tools-0.0.16.tar.gz
* 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.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   e2tools = 0.0.16-5.fc6
  =
   libcom_err.so.2()(64bit)
   libext2fs.so.2()(64bit)
* %check is present and all tests pass (as far as I can tell)
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* 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.

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

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