[Bug 656010] Review Request: libsrtp - An implementation of the Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)

[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=656010

Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege at land.ru> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |krege at land.ru
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |krege at land.ru
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich <krege at land.ru> 2010-12-03 02:20:20 EST ---
rpmlint is not silent.

libsrtp.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
libsrtp.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
libsrtp.src: W: no-%clean-section
libsrtp.src: W: invalid-url Source0: srtp-1.4.4-20101004cvs.tar.bz2
libsrtp.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsrtp.so.0.0.0
exit at GLIBC_2.2.5
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Exit call is not good. Could you provide any reasons why it might be leaved as
is?

Is there any way to specify the revision for csv checkout in spec?

* The package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
* The spec file name match the base package %{name}. 
* The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
* The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license.
* The License field in the package spec file matchs the actual license.
* File, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is 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 match the upstream source. MARK: md5sum
on provided .tar.bz2 and obtained .tar.bz2 are MISMATCHED, but the sources are
EQUAL.
* The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on x86_64 F14.
* All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
* There are no locales.
* Binary RPM package which stores shared library files calls ldconfig in %post
and %postun.
* Packages do not bundle copies of system libraries.
* A package owns all directories that it creates.
* There are no files, listed more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
* Permissions on files are set properly.
* The package contains code, or permissable content.
* There is no large documentation.
* Header files are in a -devel package.
* There are no static libraries.
* Library files that end in .so (without suffix) is in a -devel package.
* Devel packages requires the base package.
* Packages doed not contain any .la libtool archives.
* All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

All is need are the answers on two above questions.

-- 
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.