[Bug 675798] Review Request: liblzf - Small data compression library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Feb 24 18:02:15 UTC 2011
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=675798
Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> 2011-02-24 13:02:14 EST ---
Fedora review liblzf 2011-02-24
+ rpmlint output:
liblzf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary unlzf
liblzf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lzf
liblzf-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
+ Package named according to guidelines
+ Spacfile is named after package
+ The license tag (BSD or GPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license
+ The license tag matches thr actual license statements in the sources
+ Package installs LICENSE file as %doc
+ Specfile is written in legible English
+ Sources matches upstream:
$ md5sum ../liblzf-3.6.tar.gz liblzf-3.6.tar.gz
8d957cc292ccc8f080726887688b76a4 ../liblzf-3.6.tar.gz
8d957cc292ccc8f080726887688b76a4 liblzf-3.6.tar.gz
+ Package builds in mock (Fedora 14 x86_64)
+ BuildRequires are sane
+ no locales
+ Package invokes ldconfig appropriately
+ no bundled libraries
+ no relocation prefix
+ Package owns the directories it creates
+ no duplicate files
+ File permissions are sane and %files has %defattr
+ Specfile uses macros consistently
+ Package contains code
+ %doc is not runtime essential
+ Header files are in -devel
+ no static libraries
+ .so symlink in -devel
+ subpackage requiers main with fully qualified version
+ no libtool archoves
+ no desktop file
+ Package does not own other's directories
+ Filenames are valid utf-8
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list