[Bug 773442] Review Request: libvirt-sandbox - libvirt application sandbox framework

[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=773442

Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kchamart at redhat.com

--- Comment #2 from Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart at redhat.com> 2012-01-12 08:01:15 EST ---
Here is my review. 

########################################################
OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release
OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines

OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is LGPLv2+)

OK - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun
OK - Rationale provided for static linking
OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build

OK - The spec file must be written in American English.
OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible
OK - The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
========================
[build at tesla SOURCES]$ gpg --verify libvirt-sandbox-0.0.1.tar.gz.asc 
gpg: Signature made Wed 11 Jan 2012 03:30:31 PM EST using RSA key ID 15104FDF
gpg: Good signature from "Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: DAF3 A6FD B26B 6291 2D0E  8E3F BE86 EBB4 1510 4FDF
[build at tesla SOURCES]$
========================

OK - A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings
OK - Permissions on files must be set properly
OK - Each package must have a %clean section
OK - Each package must consistently use macros
OK - The package must contain code, or permissible content 
OK - Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage -- No large
documentation
OK - If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application
OK - Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' - This
is fetched as part of other deps.
OK - Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names.
OK - All file names in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate.
########################################################

Looks good to me. Hope I didn't miss anything. As Dan already pointed out,
rpmlint bogus warnings can be ignored.

Also, scratch build is successful per previous comment. 

Review 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.