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=557995 Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #1 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-23 18:16:19 EST --- OK - MUST: rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/ssldump-* 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. FIX - MUST: not named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - MUST: spec file name matches the base package %{name} OK - MUST: package meets the Packaging Guidelines OK - MUST: Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines OK - MUST: License field in spec file matches the actual license OK - MUST: license file included in %doc OK - MUST: spec is in American English OK - MUST: spec is legible OK - MUST: sources match the upstream source by MD5 ac8c28fe87508d6bfb06344ec496b1dd OK - MUST: successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 OK - MUST: No ExcludeArch OK - MUST: all build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. N/A - MUST: handles locales properly with %find_lang N/A - MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. N/A - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. OK - MUST: owns all directories that it creates OK - MUST: no duplicate files in the %files listing OK - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly, includes %defattr(...) OK - MUST: package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: consistently uses macros OK - MUST: package contains code, or permissable content N/A - MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage OK - MUST: Files included as %doc do not affect the runtime of the application N/A - MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package N/A - MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package N/A - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A - MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix, then library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A - MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency OK - MUST: The package does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. OK - MUST: package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK - MUST: at the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK - MUST: all filenames valid UTF-8 SHOULD Items: OK - SHOULD: Source package includes license text(s) as a separate file. N/A - SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. OK - SHOULD: builds in mock. OK - SHOULD: compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - SHOULD: functions as described. N/A - SHOULD: Scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. N/A - SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A - SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg OK - SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself: The package BuildRequires %{_includedir}/pcap.h, but this file is provided by different packages in different versions of Fedora/RHEL, so this is ok. Other items: OK - latest stable version ;) OK - SourceURL valid OK - Compiler flags ok OK - Debuginfo complete OK - Timestamps match upstream and are preserved when possible Issues: - The release tag is wrong: 0.1 indicated a pre-release package, but b3 is a post release. So is should be 1.b3%{?dist} - The license is BSD with advertising but ssldump links against OpenSSL. Not sure if this is allowed, blocking FE-Legal. - Build fails locally if there is more than one version of automake installed. I suggest to use the workaround I already proposed in bug 496492 comment 6. I wouldn't call this a blocker though, since the package builds fine in koji. @Spot: Please have a look at the licensing. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review