[Bug 187241] Review Request: mboxgrep - Displays e-mail messages matching a pattern

[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: mboxgrep - Displays e-mail messages matching a pattern


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187241


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          QAContact|fedora-extras-              |fedora-package-
                   |list at redhat.com             |review at redhat.com

tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-05-03 00:03 EST -------
Not much to say, really.
"BuildPrereq" needs to be changed to "BuildRequires"; this will quiet rpmlint.
Since it's just a simple change, I'll go ahead and approve and you can fix it
when you check in.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible; text is included in the package.
* source files match upstream:
   4b256de164b8f094db9ccf0e6386d246  mboxgrep-0.7.9.tar.gz
   4b256de164b8f094db9ccf0e6386d246  mboxgrep-0.7.9.tar.gz-srpm
* latest version is being packaged.
X BuildPrereq is used instead BuildRequires, but the requirement are sane.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint complains of BuildPrereq use.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* no shared libraries are present.
* 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.
O %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* info files are present and installed correctly.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
* scriptlets are sane.

APPROVED; fix the BuildPrereq: thing when you check in.

-- 
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.