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 ------- Additional Comments From ghenry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-05 14:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > 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. Will do. > > 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. It supports SASL, which in turn can do GSSAPI. Any thing ldapsearch/ldapadd can do, ldapvi can do I presume. > > 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. Thanks. -- 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