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: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245432 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-30 16:05 EST ------- OK, everything builds OK and rpmlint is finally silent. The URL: and Source0: are off as with the libtommath; Source0: should be what's in URL: and URL: should be http://www.libtom.org/?page=features&newsitems=5&whatfile=crypt You generally shouldn't start Summary: with the name of the package. Those issues are minor; I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix them when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: e33b47d77a495091c8703175a25c8228aff043140b2554c08a3c3cd71f79d116 crypt-1.17.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. ? summary starts with the name of the package. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text (grant to public domain) included in 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. * final provides and requires are sane: libtomcrypt-1.17-5.fc8.x86_64.rpm libtomcrypt.so.0()(64bit) libtomcrypt = 1.17-5.fc8 = /sbin/ldconfig libtomcrypt.so.0()(64bit) libtommath >= 0.41 libtommath.so.0()(64bit) libtomcrypt-devel-1.17-5.fc8.x86_64.rpm libtomcrypt-devel = 1.17-5.fc8 = libtomcrypt = 1.17-5.fc8 libtomcrypt.so.0()(64bit) * %check is present and all tests pass (I think): store_test....passed cipher_test...passed modes_test....passed der_test......passed mac_test......passed pkcs_1_test...passed rsa_test......passed ecc_test......passed dsa_test......passed katja_test....NOPpassed I guess "NOPpassed" means the test doesn't do anything. * ldconfig is called as necessary to install shared libs, and unversioned .so files are in the -devel subpackage. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- 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