[Bug 175623] Review Request: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jun 21 04:11:09 UTC 2006
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: yaz - Z39.50/SRW/SRU programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175623
tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|gdk at redhat.com |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163779
nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-06-21 00:02 EST -------
Builds fine in mock (x86_64, development) and rpmlint is quiet.
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
2d401ea471a87e7a056ea2df9e2d9d14 yaz-2.1.22.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (x86_64, development).
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
libyaz-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
libyaz.so.2()(64bit)
libyazthread.so.2()(64bit)
libyaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libcrypto.so.6()(64bit)
libexslt.so.0()(64bit)
libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit)
libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit)
libssl.so.6()(64bit)
libwrap.so.0()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
libxslt.so.1()(64bit)
libyaz.so.2()(64bit)
libyazthread.so.2()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
libyaz-devel-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
libyaz-devel = 2.1.22-1.fc6
=
/bin/sh
libxml2-devel
libyaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6
libyaz.so.2()(64bit)
libyazthread.so.2()(64bit)
openssl-devel
readline-devel
yaz-2.1.22-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
yaz = 2.1.22-1.fc6
=
libcrypto.so.6()(64bit)
libexslt.so.0()(64bit)
libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit)
libgpg-error.so.0()(64bit)
libhistory.so.5()(64bit)
libncurses.so.5()(64bit)
libreadline.so.5()(64bit)
libssl.so.6()(64bit)
libwrap.so.0()(64bit)
libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
libxslt.so.1()(64bit)
libyaz.so.2()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called and unversioned .so files are
in the -devel package.
* 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 present and all tests pass:
===================
All 21 tests passed
===================
* scriptlets present and OK (ldconfig calls)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers present in -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
APPROVED
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list