[Bug 231835] Review Request: uisp - Universal In-System Programmer for Atmel AVR and 8051

[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: uisp - Universal In-System Programmer for Atmel AVR and 8051


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231835


bugzilla at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-06-27 20:52 EST -------
Another package I'm not qualified to understand and unable to test, but I can
review the packaging....

I'm not really sure the hardware list is appropriate for the %description.  I
don't think it's a blocker, but that's probably the thing that's best left for
the package documentation.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   7c43c5f34f00a7243bda87457e43dc9122b5a3837b1370b30f39c1eecbedccae  
   uisp-20050207.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
O description is a bit long.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   uisp = 20050207-1.fc8
  =
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit)
   libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I haven't the hardware to
   test this manually.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

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.