Approval needed: cln, GiNaC
Tom 'spot' Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Wed May 18 20:41:54 UTC 2005
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 14:45 -0500, Quentin Spencer wrote:
> All of these should now be fixed.
Review of GiNaC:
Rpmlint tests:
GiNaC-1.3.1-1.i386.rpm:
E: GiNaC no-signature
GiNaC-devel-1.3.1-1.i386.rpm:
E: GiNaC-devel requires-on-release GiNaC 1.3.1-1
W: GiNaC-devel no-major-in-name GiNaC-devel
E: GiNaC-devel no-signature
GiNaC-utils-1.3.1-1.i386.rpm:
E: GiNaC-utils requires-on-release GiNaC 1.3.1-1
E: GiNaC-utils no-signature
GiNaC-1.3.1-1.src.rpm:
E: GiNaC no-signature
All rpmlint errors can be ignored.
Good:
- Source matches upstream
- License OK (GPL), COPYING included in main package
- Libraries have ldconfig in %post/%postun
- Scriptlets look sane
- Meets PackageNamingGuidelines
- Meets PackagingGuidelines
- No missing BuildRequires
Approved.
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list