[Bug 634025] Review Request: PolarSSL - Light-weight cryptographic and SSL/TLS library

[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=634025

--- Comment #2 from Golo Fuchert <packages at golotop.de> 2010-11-12 17:52:08 EST ---
The package looks quite clean to me, except of one issue (see below). But since
I am not yet sponsored I can only make an inofficial review.

Inofficial review:

[+] = ok
[o] = does not apply
[-] = not ok
[?] = see comments

[+] rpmlint is quiet
rpmlint polarssl-0.14.0-1.fc13.src.rpm
../RPMS/i686/polarssl-devel-0.14.0-1.fc14.i686.rpm
../RPMS/i686/polarssl-0.14.0-1.fc14.i686.rpm ../SPECS/polarssl.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[+] The package is named according to the guidelines
[+] Spec file name matches base package name
[+] The package follows the Packaging Guidelines
[+] The license is an approved licence
[+] The License field matches the actual licence
[+] License file from source file is included in %doc
[+] The spec file is written in American English
[+] The spec file is legible
[+] Used sources match width upstream sources (md5)
[+] Package build at least on one primary architecture (i686)
[?] ExecludeArch for x86_64?? SEE COMMENT BELOW
[+] All build dependencies are listed in the BuildRequires section
[o] No locales for the package
[+] Package stores shared libraries and calls ldconfig in %post/%postun
[+] Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
[o] Package is not relocatable
[o] Package does not install any directories to be owned
[+] No files are listed more then once in the %files section
[+] File permissions are set properly (%defattr(...) is used)
[+] Consistent use of macros
[+] Package contains code and documentation only, no content
[o] No large documentation files
[+] %doc files do not affect runtime
[o] No Header files included
[o] No static libraries
[+] Library files ending with .so correctly in a -devel package
[+] -devel package requires the package correctly as %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] No libtool .la archives included
[o] No GUI application
[+] Package does not own files or directories that are owned by other packages
[+] All filenames are valid UTF-8

-----

Comments:

- Wouldn't it be good practice to comment on the patches (i.e. where do they
come from, why are they needed and does upstream know about them)? I think the
guidelines encourage you to do this
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment).

- The package fails to build here on the x86_64 architecture. Some files seem
to be put in $BUILDROOT/usr/lib but later %{_libdir} is expanded to /usr/lib64
(of course). My fault or a bug?

-----

So in my opinion the package is ready after either dealing with the x86_64
issue, excluding this arch or tell me what I did wrong. ;-)

-- 
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.