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: ldapvi - ldapvi is an interactive LDAP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247115 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-05 14:32 EST ------- This builds fine for me; rpmlint only says: W: ldapvi summary-not-capitalized ldapvi is an interactive LDAP client Generally you shouldn't include the name of the package in the summary; using just "An interactive LDAP client" would fix two issues at once. I thoughht this would be just the ticket, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to support kerberos-based auth. It seems to work well enough doing an anonymous bind, but of course I can't write any changes. Since there's just the minor issue of the summary, I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it when you check in. Review: * source files match upstream: 6f62e92d20ff2ac0d06125024a914b8622e5b8a0a0c2d390bf3e7990cbd2e153 ldapvi-1.7.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X summary generally should not contain 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 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 would be silent if Summary: were fixed as above. * final provides and requires are sane: ldapvi = 1.7-1.fc8 = libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) liblber-2.3.so.0()(64bit) libldap-2.3.so.0()(64bit) libncurses.so.5()(64bit) libpopt.so.0()(64bit) libreadline.so.5()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.5()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. Things seem to work well enough under manual testing. * 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 files. APPROVED, just fix up the summary. -- 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