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: bip - IRC Bouncer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437694 ------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-30 08:47 EST ------- I don't think you need that explicit Requires: openssl, since the package picks it up automatically (see libcrypto.so.7 and libssl.so.7): Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libcrypto.so.7()(64bit) libssl.so.7()(64bit) openssl rtld(GNU_HASH) Also, the license should be GPLv2+, not GPLv2. Minor distinction, but the code all has: * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. * See the file "COPYING" for the exact licensing terms. Make those two corrections and I'll approve. REVIEW ======= - rpmlint checks return nothing. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPLv2+) OK, text in %doc - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (94c1b44bd49c65dde5d006b2df236449a53a1aa9) - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file -- 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