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: svrcore Alias: svrcore https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393 jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-15 14:47 EST ------- Lots of progress here... Re-review notes: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. The spec file in the src.rpm is dirsec-svrcore.spec, references other dirsec- bits, I presume this isn't the version aiming to get into Fedora Extras. The stand-alone svrcore.spec you link to looks correct though. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. MPL/GPL/LGPL, text included in package. * source files match upstream: fbb56acf580aa0ebb32df58594458b28 svrcore-4.0.3.01-orig.tar.gz fbb56acf580aa0ebb32df58594458b28 svrcore-4.0.3.01.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (rawhide/x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. only 1 ignorable warning about no docs in -devel * final provides and requires are sane: svrcore-4.0.3.01-0.fc7.x86_64.rpm libsvrcore.so.0()(64bit) svrcore = 4.0.3.01-0.fc7 = /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig libnspr4.so()(64bit) libnss3.so()(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.10.2)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libplc4.so()(64bit) libplds4.so()(64bit) libssl3.so()(64bit) libsvrcore.so.0()(64bit) nspr >= 4.6 nss >= 3.11 svrcore-debuginfo-4.0.3.01-0.fc7.x86_64.rpm libsvrcore.so.0.0.0.debug()(64bit) svrcore-debuginfo = 4.0.3.01-0.fc7 = (none) svrcore-devel-4.0.3.01-0.fc7.x86_64.rpm svrcore-devel = 4.0.3.01-0.fc7 = libsvrcore.so.0()(64bit) nspr-devel >= 4.6 nss-devel >= 3.11 pkgconfig svrcore = 4.0.3.01-0.fc7 * shared libraries are properly split between main and -devel packages. * 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 N/A * appropriate minimal ldconfig scriptlets. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * header in -devel package, installs in /usr/include/. * pkgconfig files appropriately in -devel. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. * not a web app. Assuming you create a new srpm with the correct spec (the one w/o dirsec-), I'm gonna say APPROVED, import at will. -- 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