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: osslsigncode - Tool for Authenticode signing of EXE/CAB files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=257061 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-10-04 00:53 EST ------- I don't think this is really the proper forum for doing a patent review; all we can do is review the packaging. If you want to pass this to Red Hat's lawyers before importing, that's up to you. In the meantime, this is a clean package; it builds fine and rpmlint is silent. There's not much to it, really. I guess you can handle not using the dist tag; I don't expect that this package will need to change often anyway. * source files match upstream: 5cd55fa974b06bf89ee128137a969e58a8c6ea1df20b100ddb6b23a58682bec8 osslsigncode-1.2.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. * 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 is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: osslsigncode = 1.2-2 = libcrypto.so.6()(64bit) libcurl.so.4()(64bit) libssl.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I haven't a clue how to test this package. * 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 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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