[Bug 452105] Review Request: php-pear-Auth-RADIUS - Wrapper Classes for the RADIUS PECL
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jun 21 22:35:58 UTC 2008
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: php-pear-Auth-RADIUS - Wrapper Classes for the RADIUS PECL
Alias: pear-Auth-RADIUS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452105
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 2008-06-21 18:35 EST -------
Another trivial review; builds fine, rpmlint is silent and everything looks good
to me.
I assume you know that Requires(hint): is the same as Requires:, so this package
ends up depending on mcrypt, mhash, and Crypt-CHAP. They're tiny, so I don't
see this as a problem, but I don't really see the point in just not using
regular dependencies.
* source files match upstream:
fc993398a48e00eea572ac74157d02d53ead4fb60471e1ebb8861c4ae133b90e
Auth_RADIUS-1.0.6.tgz
* 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.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included (separately) upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
php-pear(Auth_RADIUS) = 1.0.6
php-pear-Auth-RADIUS = 1.0.6-1.fc10
=
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/pear
php-mcrypt
php-mhash
php-pear(Crypt_CHAP)
php-pear(PEAR)
php-pecl(radius) >= 1.2.5
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list