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: libtomcrypt - comprehensive, portable cryptographic toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=245432
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 2007-06-30 16:05 EST -------
OK, everything builds OK and rpmlint is finally silent.
The URL: and Source0: are off as with the libtommath; Source0: should be what's
in URL: and URL: should be
http://www.libtom.org/?page=features&newsitems=5&whatfile=crypt
You generally shouldn't start Summary: with the name of the package.
Those issues are minor; I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix them when
you check in.
Review:
* source files match upstream:
e33b47d77a495091c8703175a25c8228aff043140b2554c08a3c3cd71f79d116
crypt-1.17.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
? summary starts with the name of the package.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text (grant to public domain) included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* 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:
libtomcrypt-1.17-5.fc8.x86_64.rpm
libtomcrypt.so.0()(64bit)
libtomcrypt = 1.17-5.fc8
=
/sbin/ldconfig
libtomcrypt.so.0()(64bit)
libtommath >= 0.41
libtommath.so.0()(64bit)
libtomcrypt-devel-1.17-5.fc8.x86_64.rpm
libtomcrypt-devel = 1.17-5.fc8
=
libtomcrypt = 1.17-5.fc8
libtomcrypt.so.0()(64bit)
* %check is present and all tests pass (I think):
store_test....passed
cipher_test...passed
modes_test....passed
der_test......passed
mac_test......passed
pkcs_1_test...passed
rsa_test......passed
ecc_test......passed
dsa_test......passed
katja_test....NOPpassed
I guess "NOPpassed" means the test doesn't do anything.
* ldconfig is called as necessary to install shared libs, and unversioned .so
files are in the -devel subpackage.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets OK (ldconfig)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel subpackage.
* 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 on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.