[Bug 722956] Review Request: relevation - Command-line search for Revelation Password Manager files

[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=722956

Kalev Lember <kalevlember at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember at gmail.com> 2012-03-25 09:34:47 EDT ---
Fedora review relevation-1.1-1.src.rpm 2012-03-25

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint relevation relevation-1.1-1.src.rpm     
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ Rpmlint output is clean
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ 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 the license file (LICENSE)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
  c38d6eb28130bac341ff1547f3f4f477  relevation-1.1.tar.gz
  c38d6eb28130bac341ff1547f3f4f477  Download/relevation-1.1.tar.gz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly
n/a ldconfig 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
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a Header files should be in -devel
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

Some small nits:
 - The BuildRoot tag, the "rm -rf %{buildroot}" at the beginning of %install
section, the whole %clean section, and the "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" line are
no longer needed with recent rpmbuild. Feel free to clean this up before
importing the package if you want to; it's certainly not blocking the review.
 - Careful when importing the package, because the spec file appears to have
fixed email addresses, compared to the source RPM.

Otherwise looks good. 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.