[Bug 719456] Review Request: edg-gridftp-client - Command line clients to GridFTP libraries

[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=719456

Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> 2011-08-18 11:03:08 EDT ---
Fedora review edg-gridftp-client 2011-08-18

+ rpmlint output:

edg-gridftp-client.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mkdir -> mk
dir, mk-dir, midiron
edg-gridftp-client.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rmdir -> rm
dir, rm-dir, midiron
edg-gridftp-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mkdir -> mk
dir, mk-dir, midiron
edg-gridftp-client.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rmdir -> rm
dir, rm-dir, midiron
edg-gridftp-client.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
edg-gridftp-client-1.2.9.2.tar.gz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

These warnings can be ignored.

+ The package is named according to the guidelines
+ The specfile is named after the package
+ The package's License tag (EU Datagrid) is a Fedora approved license
+ The License tag matches the actual license statements in the sources
+ Package installs LICENSE file as %doc
+ Specfile is written in legible English

+ Source matches upstream (ignoring CVS directories)

diff -ur --exclude CVS checkout/edg-gridftp-client-1.2.9.2
edg-gridftp-client-1.2.9.2
(no output)

+ The package builds in mock (F15 x96_64)
+ BuildRequires are sane
+ no locales
+ no shared libraries
+ no bundled sources
+ no created directories
+ no duplicate %files

Comment: The manpages are normally listed as xxx.1* and not xxx.1.* in the
%files section in order to also allow non-compressed files.

+ File permissions are sane
+ Macros are used consistently
+ Package contains code
+ No large documentation files
+ %doc is not runtime essential
+ no headers
+ no static libraries
+ no sub-packages
+ no libtool archives
+ no GUIs
+ Package does not own other's directories
+ Filenames are UTF8


Apart from the comment about the manpages in %files there are no issues.

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.