[Bug 216912] Review Request: rtpproxy - A symmetric RTP proxy

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: rtpproxy - A symmetric RTP proxy


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216912


kevin at tummy.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |kevin at tummy.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From kevin at tummy.com  2006-12-03 19:05 EST -------
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage.
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines.
OK - License (BSD)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
2a316f4854da4e8c8d358c623e5ffdb6  rtpproxy-0.3.tar.gz
2a316f4854da4e8c8d358c623e5ffdb6  rtpproxy-0.3.tar.gz.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
OK - No rpmlint output.
OK - final provides and requires are sane:

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock.
i386/x86_64 - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version

Issues:

1. Is there anything aside from the including COPYING file to indicate
the license? I guess including that COPYING file might be enough, but there
is no mention anywhere in the code, web page or other files what the license is.
Perhaps you could report to upstream that they could be more explicit about the
license moving forward?

Otherwise I don't see any issues... this package is APPROVED. 

Don't forget to close this report NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built. 

Also, do consider reviewing another waiting package to try and spread out the
reviewer load. 

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.