[Bug 247115] Review Request: ldapvi - ldapvi is an interactive LDAP client

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: ldapvi - ldapvi is an interactive LDAP client


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247115


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-07-05 14:32 EST -------
This builds fine for me; rpmlint only says:
  W: ldapvi summary-not-capitalized ldapvi is an interactive LDAP client
Generally you shouldn't include the name of the package in the summary; using
just "An interactive LDAP client" would fix two issues at once.

I thoughht this would be just the ticket, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to
support kerberos-based auth.  It seems to work well enough doing an anonymous
bind, but of course I can't write any changes.

Since there's just the minor issue of the summary, I'll go ahead and approve
this and you can fix it when you check in.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   6f62e92d20ff2ac0d06125024a914b8622e5b8a0a0c2d390bf3e7990cbd2e153  
   ldapvi-1.7.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X summary generally should not contain the name of the package.
* 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 (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint would be silent if Summary: were fixed as above.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   ldapvi = 1.7-1.fc8
  =
   libcrypto.so.6()(64bit)
   libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
   liblber-2.3.so.0()(64bit)
   libldap-2.3.so.0()(64bit)
   libncurses.so.5()(64bit)
   libpopt.so.0()(64bit)
   libreadline.so.5()(64bit)
   libssl.so.6()(64bit)
   libtinfo.so.5()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  Things seem to work well 
   enough under manual testing.
* 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, just fix up the summary.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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.