[Bug 430399] Review Request: kstart - Daemon version of kinit for Kerberos v5

[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: kstart - Daemon version of kinit for Kerberos v5


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430399


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2008-04-04 22:43 EST -------
I actually went looking for this the other day, only to find it sitting in the
review queue for two months.

The license actually looks like the MIT license to me; the kerberos portion is
definitely the old-style MIT license and the rest is yet another modern version.
I'd use "MIT" for the License: tag.  Not that there's a significant distinction,
but we do separate the two for some reason I doubt I'd understand.

* source files match upstream:
   120320685f67776f823830c93a154a5960209f2e09f55e0519debcd18e89ffea  
   kstart-3.10.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field should be MIT.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   kstart = 3.10-1.fc9
  =
   libkrb5.so.3()(64bit)
   libkrb5.so.3(krb5_3_MIT)(64bit)

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.  I'm not quite sure how I'd 
  test this.
* 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 -doc 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.

I'll go ahead and approve this on the condition that you agree with the license
change.  If you don't, let me know and we can discuss it.  Otherwise, fix it up
when you commit.

APPROVED

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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.