[Bug 473330] Review Request: gmp-ecm - Elliptic Curve Method for Integer Factorization

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473330





--- Comment #10 from manuel wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro>  2008-11-30 11:23:28 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
 - = N/A
 x = Check
 ! = Problem
 ? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
 [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [x] Rpmlint output:
source RPM: empty
binary RPMs:
  rpmlint of gmp-ecm:
  gmp-ecm.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/gmp-ecm-6.2.1/AUTHORS
--> please use the same iconv/touch -r trick as on README
  gmp-ecm.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 6.2.1-3 ['6.2.1-2.fc11',
'6.2.1-2']
--> you forgot to increase the release tag
  rpmlint of gmp-ecm-devel: empty
  rpmlint of gmp-ecm-static:
  gmp-ecm-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation
--> ignorable
 [x] Package is not relocatable.
 [x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     License type: LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+
 [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
 [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
     SHA1SUM of package: bb08c4f1b412110ef64572c387baa5bc45ae8a60
ecm-6.2.1.tar.gz
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 [-] The spec file handles locales properly.
 [x] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 [x] Permissions on files are set properly.
 [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.
 [x] Package consistently uses macros.
 [x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
 [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 [x] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [x] Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [x] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [!] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
 [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 [x] Final provides and requires are sane.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 [x] Latest version is packaged.
 [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English
 languages, if available.
 [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
     Tested on: devel/x86_64
 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on:
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.
 [x] %check is present and the test passes.


=== Issues ===
1. Please use iconv to convert the AUTHORS file
2. You forgot to increase the release tag (you only modified the changelog).
And btw, you did not upload the new src.rpm, I used only the new spec and
rebuilt the src.rpm locally.
3. Are you sure that the -static package needs the -devel? I would test, but I
am not sure that I know how to do it

-- 
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.