[Bug 510584] Review Request: openssl-ibmca - A dynamic OpenSSL engine for IBMCA

[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=510584


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-11 13:21:54 EDT ---
Yes, that works.  Can't believe I didn't think of it myself.

rpmlint is silent and according to the build logs this builds fine.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:                  
   5a2ee2084cbf2355a4d081a89ea3cd7debd6224affab89239b2bae105bea6275
   openssl-ibmca-1.0.0.tar.bz2
* 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 upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in koji.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   libibmca.so()(64bit)                                 
   openssl-ibmca = 1.0.0-1.fc11                         
   openssl-ibmca(s390-64) = 1.0.0-1.fc11
=
   libcrypto.so.8()(64bit)
   openssl >= 0.9.8

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.