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: freeipmi - Free IPMI userland implementation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368401 karsten@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From karsten@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-07 09:07 EST ------- Ok, here's the list of what I've checked, although this list isn't required by the ReviewGuidelines, it just has to be followed (which I did): - rpmlint: freeipmi.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.6-1.fc7 0.4.6-1 I think this one can be neglected, rpmlint should ignore dist tags - package follows package nameing guidelines - spec file matches base package name - Licenses of all files have been checked - no pre-built binaries included - package follows FHS - changelog looks sane - spec file tags are ok - buildroot is ok - buildroot cleaned before install, spec hat a %clean section - Buildrequirements are ok, no regressions between builds in mock and in a full environment, configure output has been checked - Requires post/preun have been added for programs used in scriptlets - static libraries have been disabled - check-rpaths doesn't complain - config files are noreplace - initscripts aren't config files - file permissions look sane - %makeinstall isn't used - tarball sha1sum matches upstream's tarball - smp flags are used for build - package owns oll directories it creates or requires other packages who own them - package build in mock and in koji, spec file has an ExclusiveArch because of glibc not supporting some required functions on s390x, sparc, ppc* with a comment pointing at a bugzilla for the reasons - freeipmi packages don't have any localizes stuff - packages run ldconfig in their scriptlets - no duplicate files in the files sections - header files are in a -devel subpackage - packages don't have any .la or pkgconfig files Btw: it would have been faster if you actually would have taken a quick look at the spec file instead of simply rejecting it. Be assured that I didn't simply waive it just because Phil happens to sit at the other side of my desk. He really had to fix quite a few issues. My fedora-review+ still stands and if you have any issues with that, take it to FESCO instead of mistrusting my review of this package -- 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