[Bug 626701] Review Request: libmikey - A C++ library implementing the Multimedia Internet KEYing protocol

[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=626701

Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> 2010-10-29 05:31:37 EDT ---
Fedora review libmikey-0.8.0-0.2.20100127svn3750.fc12.src.rpm 2010-10-29

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint libmikey \
          libmikey-devel \
          libmikey-0.8.0-0.2.20100127svn3750.fc15.src.rpm \
          libmikey-debuginfo-0.8.0-0.2.20100127svn3750.fc15.i686.rpm
libmikey.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmikey.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib/libmnetutil.so.0
libmikey.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libmikey.so.0.0.0
/lib/libm.so.6
libmikey-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
libmikey.src: W: invalid-url Source0: libmikey-0.8.0.tar.bz2
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

+ Rpmlint warnings are mostly harmless. 
  If you want to, you can try fixing libmnetutil.so.0 dependency,
  but this is certainly not a review blocker.

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ Spec file name matches the base package name
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
  Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The package contains license file (COPYING.LIB)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Following instructions in the spec file to check out sources
  from upstream svn repo produce matching tarball.
  b22c89a5e1d5745149a23e0e1527ceee  ../SOURCES/libmikey-0.8.0.tar.bz2

+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly
+ ldconfig is properly called in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code, or permissable content.
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc don't affect the package
+ Header files are in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
+ Library files that end in .so are in -devel package
+ -devel requires the fully versioned base
+ Package doesn't contain any libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

Looks good. Please don't forget to send the build fix patch upstream.

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.