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: pam_fprint - Integrate libfprint with existing applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=409011 ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2007-12-04 07:03 EST ------- packaging looks ok to me Review: + package builds in mock (development i386). + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url bfb041ed856aaac5c5c416973451226 pam_fprint-0.2.tar.bz2 + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. + License text is included in package. + BuildRequires are proper. + Compiler flags used correctly. + defattr usage is correct. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage exists. + no .la files. + no translations are available. + Does owns the directories it creates. + no scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Package pam_fprint-0.2-2.fc9 -> Provides: pam_fprint.so Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libfprint.so.0 libpam.so.0 libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0) + Not a GUI App. waiting for libfprint build -- 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