[Bug 463140] Review Request: dfu-util - USB Device Firmware Update tool

[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=463140


Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #11 from Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com>  2008-10-04 10:12:16 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: FC-9 / i386                                                     
 [x] Rpmlint output: clean                                                      
 [x] Package is not relocatable.                                                
 [x] Buildroot is correct                                                       
 [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: 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 matches the upstream source, as provided 
in the spec URL.                                                                
     Sources from SVN, commented properly in SPEC file. Diff againts sources in 
     SRPM and sources download is OK.                                           
 [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:                           
     Arches excluded: x86_64, ppc64, sparc64                                    
     Why: upstream is broken for 64 bit architectures                           
     After approval fill bugs blocking FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 
 [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.
 [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 [-] Package must own all directories that it creates.
 [-] 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 %{buildroot} (or
$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.
 [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, 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.

=== 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: koji dist-fc8 dist-fc9 dist-fc10
 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
     Tested on: koji dist-fc8 dist-fc9 dist-fc10
 [x] Package functions as described.
 [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
 [-] File based requires are sane.

APROVED

-- 
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.