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: engine_pkcs11 - A PKCS11 engine for use with OpenSSL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245760 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-28 16:38 EST ------- rpmlint is truly silent on this one. The Source0: issue applies here as well, and you probably want the same string: http://www.opensc-project.org/files/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz "BSD" is fine for the license. The two-clause variant is closer to the X11 license but either is fine. There's no reason that I can see for the openssl dependency; rpm finds the dependency on libcrypto.so.6 by itself. This package places a file in /usr/lib/engines, but I don't see any package in the distribution which owns that directory. Review: * source files match upstream: bf6f49203912cb77f92db55c146117312abf9244ba49e78649e4a7da22448e54 engine_pkcs11-0.1.3.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included 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. X final provides and requires: engine_pkcs11.so()(64bit) engine_pkcs11 = 0.1.3-2.fc8 = libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libp11.so.0()(64bit) X openssl * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I have no means to test this package. (I don't really even understand what it does.) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. X nothing owns /usr/lib/engines. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is relatively large, the the package is only 50K, 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 files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review