[Bug 196393] Review Request: svrcore

[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: svrcore
Alias: svrcore

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393


jwilson at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com  2006-12-15 14:47 EST -------
Lots of progress here... Re-review notes:

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.

The spec file in the src.rpm is dirsec-svrcore.spec, references other dirsec-
bits, I presume this isn't the version aiming to get into Fedora Extras. The
stand-alone svrcore.spec you link to looks correct though.

* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  MPL/GPL/LGPL, text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
      fbb56acf580aa0ebb32df58594458b28  svrcore-4.0.3.01-orig.tar.gz
      fbb56acf580aa0ebb32df58594458b28  svrcore-4.0.3.01.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (rawhide/x86_64).
* rpmlint is silent.
    only 1 ignorable warning about no docs in -devel
* final provides and requires are sane:
    svrcore-4.0.3.01-0.fc7.x86_64.rpm
    libsvrcore.so.0()(64bit)  
    svrcore = 4.0.3.01-0.fc7
    =
    /sbin/ldconfig  
    /sbin/ldconfig  
    libnspr4.so()(64bit)  
    libnss3.so()(64bit)  
    libnss3.so(NSS_3.10.2)(64bit)  
    libnss3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit)  
    libplc4.so()(64bit)  
    libplds4.so()(64bit)  
    libssl3.so()(64bit)  
    libsvrcore.so.0()(64bit)  
    nspr >= 4.6
    nss >= 3.11

    svrcore-debuginfo-4.0.3.01-0.fc7.x86_64.rpm
    libsvrcore.so.0.0.0.debug()(64bit)  
    svrcore-debuginfo = 4.0.3.01-0.fc7
    =
    (none)

    svrcore-devel-4.0.3.01-0.fc7.x86_64.rpm
    svrcore-devel = 4.0.3.01-0.fc7
    =
    libsvrcore.so.0()(64bit)  
    nspr-devel >= 4.6
    nss-devel >= 3.11
    pkgconfig  
    svrcore = 4.0.3.01-0.fc7

* shared libraries are properly split between main and -devel packages.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is N/A
* appropriate minimal ldconfig scriptlets.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* header in -devel package, installs in /usr/include/.
* pkgconfig files appropriately in -devel.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
* not a web app.


Assuming you create a new srpm with the correct spec (the one w/o dirsec-), I'm
gonna say APPROVED, import at will.


-- 
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.