[Bug 231861] Merge Review: cyrus-imapd - high-performance mail server (IMAP, POP3, ...)

[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=231861

Michal Sekletar <msekleta@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #20 from Michal Sekletar <msekleta@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-18 09:39:11 EDT ---
Git commit
6fe53495447ec5cf6bb6bf697335c732f839f81e
YES source file match upstream
YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines
YES spec file is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros
consistently
YES dist tag is present
YES clean section and buildroot present
YES license field matches the actual license
YES license is included in package
YES latest version is being packaged
YES build BuildRequires are proper
YES compiler flags are appropriate
YES package builds in mock
YES debuginfo package seems ok
NO  rpmlint is silent
 - some spelling-error warnings could be ignored
 - %patch1 and %patch2 are commented out but still in preamble of spec file
 - invalid patch url (Patch3)
 - some warnings about missing manpages for utils - ignored
 - warnings about directory permissions - ignored
 - warnings about hardcoded library paths - might be solved by replacing 
   hard-coded paths with macros
 - private-shared-objects-provides warnings
 - rpmlint output was consulted with maintainer, added as attachment

YES final provides and requires look sane
N/A %check is present and all tests pass
YES no shared libraries are added to regular linker search paths
YES it owns directories it creates
YES it doesn't own directories it shouldn't
YES no duplicates in %files
YES scriptlets looks sane
YES code, not content
YES large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage
 - documentation is about 1MB in size, not big enough that it is worthed
   to make standalone doc package 
YES %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package
YES no headers
YES no pkgconfig files
YES no libtool .la droppings
YES not a GUI app

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review


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