[Bug 566560] Review Request: libaesgm - Library implementation of AES (Rijndael) cryptographic methods

[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=566560

Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-05-13 10:26:37 EDT ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is almost silent

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/libaesgm-*
libaesgm.ppc: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cryptographic -> cryptographer,
cryptography, cryptogram
libaesgm.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographic ->
cryptographer, cryptography, cryptogram
libaesgm-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS:

These messages may be ignored.

+ 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 (BSD).
0 The package does not include the text of the license(s) in its own file.
+ 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, as
provided in the spec URL:

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum aes-src-29-04-09.zip*
0b6d09c741dcd1c100cdcdd8b5f5bf85cfe54bdd7bea1f96916c2471280ddf03 
aes-src-29-04-09.zip
0b6d09c741dcd1c100cdcdd8b5f5bf85cfe54bdd7bea1f96916c2471280ddf03 
aes-src-29-04-09.zip.1
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2185723

0 No additional build dependencies.
0 No need to handle locales.
+ The package calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package isn't designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+ The library file that ends in .so (without suffix) is in a -devel package.
+ The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The packages does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The packages does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in the packages are valid UTF-8.

I've got only one simple note - if you plan to provide package also for EPEl,
then you will need to add rm -rf %{buildroot} in the %install section.

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.