[Bug 457108] Review Request: libss7 - SS7 protocol services to applications

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457108


Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2008-10-06 05:43:41 EDT ---
REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is silent.
+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines .
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum libss7-1.0.1.tar.gz*
36d86c2b6a61512a0f61d48a8f6ff64c  libss7-1.0.1.tar.gz
36d86c2b6a61512a0f61d48a8f6ff64c  libss7-1.0.1.tar.gz.orig
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture (ppc).
+ No additional build dependencies.
+ The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does not create additional directories.
+ The package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
+ The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of
Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ No large documentation files
+ All, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
+ No static libraries.
+ No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) are in a -devel package.
+ Devel packages requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
+ The packages does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ Not a GUI application.
+ The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT .
+ All filenames in rpm package are be valid UTF-8.

I have only one suggestion - please include LICENSE in %doc.


This package is

APPROVED.

-- 
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.