[Bug 549980] Review Request: jama - C++ matrix templates

[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=549980


Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-12-26 05:49:43 EDT ---
REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is not silent, but his the only warning may be omitted.

[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ../RPMS/noarch/jama-devel-1.2.5-2.fc12.noarch.rpm 
jama-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
0 Upstream doesn't provide the file file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum jama125.zip*
7432bf51d7101f63d5880421f940f64cea124f1460ff2fcfb6226e6744d1360c  jama125.zip
7432bf51d7101f63d5880421f940f64cea124f1460ff2fcfb6226e6744d1360c  jama125.zip.1
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
0 The package doesn't contain %doc files.
+ C header files packaged in devel sub-package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

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.