[Bug 239200] Review Request: onesixtyone - An efficient SNMP scanner

[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: onesixtyone - An efficient SNMP scanner


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239200





------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  2007-05-16 02:00 EST -------
Builds fine for me; rpmlint has only one complaint:
  W: onesixtyone incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.32-1 0.3.2-1.fc7
Looks like its just a typo in the changelog entry.

The compiler isn't called with the proper set of flags.  You need to change your
make line to:
  make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{?_smp_mflags}

* source files match upstream:
   450806718f72a75ea108e3675ca7856f15c518fcf517df68483c486c39910d02  
   onesixtyone-0.3.2.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
X compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X debuginfo package is empty due to the lack of proper compiler flags.
X rpmlint has a valid complaint.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
  Manual testing shows that everything works fine.
* 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 static libraries.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
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]