[Bug 480254] Review Request: deletemail - A non-interactive tool for deleting mails

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Feb 7 00:11:58 UTC 2009

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-02-06 19:11:56 EDT ---
This is tiny and it might be useful, so I'll take a look.

COPYING does indeed contain an MIT license, and many of the source files do as
well, but a couple (strcasestr.c, strncasecmp.c) carry the BSD license. 
However, it doesn't seem as though those two source files are used when
building on Linux, and so the resulting package I believe still has the MIT
license as you have indicated, so that's OK.

Honestly I don't see anything else to comment on.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* 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 (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   deletemail = 0.5-1.fc11
   deletemail(x86-64) = 0.5-1.fc11

* I tested the package and it seems to work as advertised.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc 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.


The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

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.

More information about the package-review mailing list