[Bug 469892] Review Request: examiner - Utility to disassemble and comment foreign executable binaries

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 9 22:09:42 UTC 2008


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469892


Till Maas <opensource at till.name> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #4 from Till Maas <opensource at till.name>  2008-12-09 17:09:41 EDT ---
[OK] rpmlint output: silent
[OK] Spec in %{name}.spec format

[OK] license allowed: GPL+
[NEEDSWORK] license matches shortname in License: tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing

>From the GPLv2 license text that is included in the tarball:
| If the Program does not specify a version number of
| this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
| Foundation.

There is no specific version mentioned in the examiner file, therefore GPL+
has to be used.

[OK] license in tarball and included in %doc: COPYING

[OK] package is code or permissive content: code
{N/A} patches sent to upstream and commented
[OK] Source0 is a working URL
{N/A} Sourceforge URL is Source0:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
<N/A> SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}

[OK] Source0 matches Upstream:
b4c93a092c95ce9cc4e6012130ddc456  examiner-0.5.tar.gz

[OK] Package builds on all platforms: noarch
[N/A] ExcludeArch bugs are filed and commented:
[OK] BuildRequires are complete (mock builds)
(OK) No file dependencies outside of /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin 

[N/A] %find_lang used for locales
[N/A] Every (sub)package containing libraries runs ldconfig
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
[N/A] .h (header) files are in -devel subpackage
[N/A] .a (static libraries) are in -static subpackage
[N/A] contains .pc (pkgconfig) files and has Requires: pkgconfig
(N/A) .pc files are in -devel subpackage
[N/A] contains .so.X(.Y) files and .so is in -devel
[N/A] -devel subpackage has Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[N/A] .la files (libtool) are not included

[N/A] Has GUI and includes %{name}.desktop
[N/A] Follows desktop entry spec
[N/A] Valid .desktop Name
[N/A] Valid .desktop GenericName
[N/A] Valid .desktop Categories
[N/A] Valid .desktop StartupNotify
[N/A] .desktop file installed with desktop-file-install in %install

[OK] Prefix: /usr not used (not relocatable)

[OK] Owns all created directories
[OK] no duplicates in %files
[OK] %defattr(-,root,root,-) is in every %files section
[OK] Does not own files or dirs from other packages
[OK] included filenames are in UTF-8

[OK] %clean is rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 
[OK] %install starts with rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT 

[OK] Consistent macro usage

[N/A] large documentation is -doc subpackage
[OK] %doc does not affect runtime

{OK} no pre-built binaries (.a, .so*, executable)

{OK} well known BuildRoot
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
{OK} PreReq not used
{N/A} RPM_OPT_FLAGS honoured
{N/A} Useful debuginfo generated
{N/A} no duplication of system libraries
{N/A} no rpath
{OK} Timestamps preserved with cp and install
{N/A} Uses parallel make (%{?_smp_mflags})
{OK} Requires(pre,post) style notation not used
{OK} only writes to tmp /var/tmp $TMPDIR %{_tmppath} %{_builddir} (and
%{buildroot} on %install and %clean)
{OK} no Conflicts
{OK} nothing installed in /srv
{OK} Changelog in allowed format
{OK} does not use Scriptlets

<OK> Architecture independent packages have: BuildArch: noarch
<OK> Sane Provides: and Requires:

{OK} Follows Naming Guidelines


Conclusion:

This package is APPROVED, but change the license tag to GPL+ before importing
it to Fedora.

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list