[Bug 190304] Review Request: mtd-utils

[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: mtd-utils


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190304


jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org  |dwmw2 at redhat.com
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org  2006-05-01 20:18 EST -------
Completed MUST items:

- rpmlint output:

[jwboyer at vader i386]$ rpmlint -v mtd-utils-1.0.0-1.i386.rpm
I: mtd-utils checking
[jwboyer at vader i386]$

- named according to the Package Naming guidlines
- spec file name matches %{name}.spec
- meets Packaging Guidelines
- licensed under the GPL
- License: field matches
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
- source SHA1 sum matches upstream
- compiles and builds on x86

Two small nits:

- The package should probably throw a Requires: zlib and BuildRequires:
zlib-devel in the spec file.
- The upstream source lacks a copy of the license text.  It would be nice if the
upstream source could include this at some point, but is not required.

I'm assuming David will fixup the zlib issues.  After that is done, I consider
this approved.

-- 
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.