[Bug 1203476] Review Request: sslh - Applicative protocol(SSL/SSH) multiplexer

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Apr 8 18:52:50 UTC 2015


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203476

Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)     |
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> ---
Remember, best practice is to bump release and add a changelog entry on a
change in the spec file. I won't require it in this case, but you should do
that when you are working with package spec files committed to Fedora git.

= REVIEW =
Good:
- rpmlint checks return:
sslh.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Applicative -> Application,
Multiplicative
sslh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tinc -> tin, tic, inc
sslh.src: W: strange-permission sslh-v1.17.tar.gz 0640L
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Applicative -> Application,
Multiplicative
sslh.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tinc -> tin, tic, inc
sslh.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sslh-select

All safe to ignore.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPLv2) OK, text in %license, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
(4f3589ed36d8a21581268d53055240eee5e5adf02894a2ca7a6c9022f24b582a)
- 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
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file

APPROVED.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component


More information about the package-review mailing list