[Bug 529387] Review Request: rcrpanel - Create a front panel for an electronics device

[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=529387

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 #17 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> 2010-11-01 21:35:42 EDT ---
Hmm, it seems unfortunate that this stalled out when a review was basically
complete.  I did a quick look and it still builds fine and has no rpmlint
issues.  I might as well just take care of this.

Like many review tickets of this age, there are a few lines from the spec that
are unnecessary on modern Fedora (BuildRoot:, the first line of %install, and
on F13+, the entire %clean section).  I'd suggest removing them unless you plan
to target EPEL.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  15f2d774c768695081f2221853b1dd869649b211eb2dbf809d3d5ed5875640e9
   rcrpanel-3.5.tar.gz
* 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.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   rcrpanel = 3.5-1.fc15
   rcrpanel(x86-64) = 3.5-1.fc15
  =
   (nothing special)

* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* 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.

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.