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: i2c-tools - A heterogeneous set of I2C tools for Linux https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=380951 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-17 21:44 EST ------- Does the eepromer package really not need the main package? I'm going to assume that's the case, but it seems odd that it wouldn't need the devices that the main package sets up. What happened to the decode-xeon.pl script? And why is decode-edid.pl removed? Is it because there's an external dependency? Other than those questions, I see nothing that needs comment. Review: * source files match upstream: 9fda4ceff4ff6f9e4f45272972f00ac08631d1edb6f5f554c2d085db77ef6b51 i2c-tools-3.0.0.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summaries are OK. * descriptions are 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 (none) * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: i2c-tools-3.0.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm i2c-tools = 3.0.0-1.fc9 = /usr/bin/perl perl >= 0:5.004 perl(Fcntl) perl(POSIX) perl(strict) perl(vars) udev i2c-tools-eepromer-3.0.0-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm i2c-tools-eepromer = 3.0.0-1.fc9 = (none) * %check is not present; no way to test automatically. * 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