[Bug 226418] Merge Review: sharutils

[bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226418


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |RAWHIDE
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx




--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx>  2008-09-04 15:24:09 EDT ---
After recent checkins, this builds fine and rpmlint is silent.  All of the
above suggestions seem to have been addressed.

One minor problem is that Requires(pre): info should be Requires(post): info. 
This is trivial, so I have committed a fix.

* source files match upstream:
   2f29604c9bc4471fb35975c10074bb3585dea66ebc52b5560989a370f2e3f00e  
   sharutils-4.7.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is 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.
* 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:
   sharutils = 4.7-2.fc10
   sharutils(x86-64) = 4.7-2.fc10
  =
   /bin/bash
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/perl
   info
   perl(File::Temp)

* %check is present and all tests pass:
   ==================
   All 5 tests passed
   ==================

* 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.
* %find_lang used properly to collect locale files.
* scriptlets are OK (info page installation).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc 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 the QA contact for the bug.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review