[Bug 226704] Review Request: iasl - Intel acpi compiler

[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: iasl - Intel acpi compiler


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226704


andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |
              nThis|                            |
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de  2007-03-09 10:53 EST -------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

 * rpmlint output is ok as license and tag are approved this way:
   W: iasl invalid-license Intel Software License Agreement
 * Package is according to guidelines especially as other distros use iasl as
   name and intel suggest so as well
 * specfile name matches %{name}
 * package is build according to the guidelines 
 * License is ok and approved:
   https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-January/msg00427.html,
   this is also mentioned in the specfile
 * license field matches actual license
 * specfile seems to be American English
 * spec file is legible
 * source md5sum matches upstream
   [awjb at alkaid] md5sum acpica-unix-20061109.tar.gz /tmp/acpica-unix-20061109.tar.gz
   0ca508dd9bec10fb3b53c72aea6bb6a1  acpica-unix-20061109.tar.gz
   0ca508dd9bec10fb3b53c72aea6bb6a1  /tmp/acpica-unix-20061109.tar.gz
 * builds fine (mock/fc6/x86_64,mock/fc6/i386)
 * build requires look fine
 * package does not have locales
 * no shared libraries in this package
 * package is not designed to be relocatable
 * package does not create any directorys
 * no duplicate files in %files listing
 * permissions on included files are proper
 * package includes clean section
 * use of macros is consistent 
 * content of the package is ok
 * documentation files do not need -doc subpackage
 * doc files do not influence runtime 
 * no header files
 * no static libraries
 * no .pc files
 * no .so files
 * no devel package
 * package does not contain .la files
 * package does not contain a gui application
 * package does not own any directories or files of other packages

As the utils do not seem important and could be added at a later point of time
if they become of any use (compare to debian/gentoo which only has iasl as
well) I consider the package approved.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF8YLXQEQyPsWM8csRAuj9AJ4t3Oqy9RRsiLmG+CMP4Pi/34p04ACfUy7C
ULRBOR2aZLnW35O3d+bbKO4=
=1y9K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.