[Bug 367961] Review Request: qca-gnupg - GnuPG plugin for the Qt Cryptographic Architecture v2
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Nov 6 07:56:30 UTC 2007
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: qca-gnupg - GnuPG plugin for the Qt Cryptographic Architecture v2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=367961
andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From andreas.bierfert at lowlatency.de 2007-11-06 02:56 EST -------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OK: rpmlint error can be ignored: qca-gnupg.src:35: E: configure-without-libdir-spec
OK: package is named according to guidelines
OK: spec matches base package %{name}
OK: package meets the packaging guidelines
OK: fedora approved license (LGPLv2+)
OK: license field matches license
OK: license is included in %doc
OK: spec is written in ae
OK: spec file is legible
OK: source matches upstream:
md5sum qca-gnupg-2.0.0-beta1.tar.bz2 /tmp/qca-gnupg-2.0.0-beta1.tar.bz2
88fe56f2b673fa7d66c8d18046ade22e qca-gnupg-2.0.0-beta1.tar.bz2
88fe56f2b673fa7d66c8d18046ade22e /tmp/qca-gnupg-2.0.0-beta1.tar.bz2
OK: builds fine on x86_64/f7
OK: BR are ok
OK: No duplicate files
OK: file perms are ok
OK: clean section
OK: macro usage
OK: %doc does not affect runtime
OK: no .la files
OK: does not own files or directories from other packages
OK: install section
OK: filenames are ok
Thus the package qca-gnupg
f4d80b826baff8b02be5a982bfc7559c qca-gnupg-2.0.0-0.1.beta1.fc7.src.rpm
is approved.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHMB38QEQyPsWM8csRAq5oAJ9jjBXY4SgqGQnRM8wp2SWORdj4owCfTlyC
Ksl4c9+OwfQemKDGmy114Lc=
=n3YQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list